•r 


GIFT   OF 
Gladys  Isaacson 


LANDMARKS  IN  THE  HISTORY 
OF  EARLY  CHRISTIANITY 


THE    MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

NEW  YORK    •    BOSTON   •   CHICAGO   •   DALLAS 
ATLANTA    •   SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON   •    BOMBAY   •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THB  MACMILLAN  CO.  OP  CANADA.  LTD. 

TORONTO 


LANDMARKS   IN   THE    HISTORY 

OF 

EARLY    CHRISTIANITY 


BY 
KIRSOPP  LAKE,  D.D, 


gorfc 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
1922 

All  rights  reserved 


FEINTED   IN    THE   UNITED    STATES   OF  AMERICA    - 


Rights  Reserved 


GLADYS  I SAAOSON 


Press  of 

j.  J.  Little  &  Ives  Company 
New  York,  U.  S.  A. 


TO 

H.  R. 


M27870 


PREFACE 

THE  following  chapters  are  the  lectures  given  in  the 
spring  of  1919  on  the  Haskell  Foundation  of 
Oberlin  College.  They  have  been  somewhat  ex- 
panded in  the  course  of  preparation  for  the  press,  but 
have  not  been  materially  changed. 

At  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  these  lectures  I  was  busy 
with  the  chapter  on  "Primitive  Christianity"  in  the 
Prolegomena  to  Acts,  and  was  glad  of  the  opportunity  to 
re-state  some  of  the  conclusions  reached  in  that  book  in 
a  less  technical  form  and  with  more  attention  to  their 
bearing  on  some  of  the  larger  questions  of  religion  and 
thought,  such  as  the  Teaching  of  Jesus,  the  Hope  of  Im- 
mortality, and  the  Development  of  Christology.  I  did 
not  hesitate  to  make  use  of  one  or  two  paragraphs  from 
the  larger  book,  and  I  think  that  my  friend,  Mr.  C.  G. 
Montefiore,  will  forgive  me  for  having  borrowed  two  beau- 
tiful stories  from  his  chapter  in  it. 

I  am  greatly  indebted  to  the  Faculty  of  Oberlin  College 
not  only  for  the  privilege  of  lecturing  to  them,  but  also 
for  the  hospitality  extended  to  me  during  a  very  pleasant 
week  and  for  the  beginning  of  new  and  delightful  friend- 
ships. 

KIKSOPP  LAKE. 

CAMBRIDGE,  MASS., 
April,  1920. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  I 

GALILEE 

FACE 

Introduction — The  history  of  Christianity  as  a  series  of 
syntheses — The  Jewish  world — The  Kingdom  of  God 
— Repentance — The  teaching  of  Jesus  as  compared 
with  his  Jewish  contemporaries 1 

CHAPTER  II 

JERUSALEM 

The  Synoptic  Problem  and  Acts — Inspiration — Commun- 
ism— Messianic  doctrine — The  Christ — The  Son  of 
Man— The  Son  of  God 28 

CHAPTER  III 

ANTIOCH 

The  spread  of  Christianity — Damascus — The  Hellenist 
missionaries — Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem — The  source- 
criticism  of  Acts — The  traditions  of  Jerusalem  and 
Antioch 44 

CHAPTER  IV 

CORINTH 

Christianity  as  a   Graeco-Oriental  cult — Salvation — The 
reasons  for  the  victory  of  Christianity — Jesus  as  an 
historic  person — The  personality  of  Jesus — The  Fa-         ; 
therhood  of  God — Baptism — Immortality   ....       55 


x  Contents 

CHAPTER  V 
ROME  AND  EPHESUS 

PAGE 

Paul's  contribution — Adoptionism — Roman  documents — 
Romans — Hebrews — 1  Peter — 1  Clement — Hermas — 
Baptism  and  repentance — Pre-existent  Christology — 
The  later  Epistles— The  Fourth  Gospel— The  doctrine 
of  the  Logos — Justin  Martyr — Origen — Conclusion  .  75 

APPENDIX 

The  Interpretation  of  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas.    By  F.  S. 

MACKENZIE 105 

ADDITIONAL  NOTE  .  .    108 


LANDMARKS  IN  THE  HISTORY 
OF  EARLY  CHRISTIANITY 


LANDMARKS  IN  THE  EARLY 
HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


GALILEE 


AT  first  sight  the  historian  of  religions  appears  to 
be  faced  by  a  number  of  clearly  distinguished 
entities,  to  each  of  which  he  feels  justified  in  giv- 
ing the  name  of  a  separate  religion;  but  on  further  con- 
sideration it  becomes  obvious  that  each  one  of  these  entities 
has  been  in  a  condition  of  flux  throughout  its  history. 
Each  began  as  a  combination  or  synthesis  of  older  forms 
of  thought  with  comparatively  little  new  in  its  composi- 
tion ;  each  ended  by  disintegrating  into  many  elements,  of 
which  the  worst  disappeared,  while  the  best  were  taken 
up  into  new  life  in  some  new  religion.  The  movement 
was  more  marked  at  some  times  than  at  others,  and  the 
differentiation  of  the  various  religions  depends  chiefly 
on  the  recognition  of  these  moments  of  more  rapid  change. 
But  the  process  never  really  stopped;  from  beginning  to 
end  new  elements  were  constantly  absorbed  and  old  ele- 
ments dropped.  For  religion  lives  through  the  death  of 
religions. 

Nothing  illustrates  this  so  well  as  the  history  of  Chris- 
tianity, for  no  religion  is  so  well  known.  The  facts  are 
plainly  visible,  and  would  be  plainly  seen  by  all,  were  it 
not  for  the  general  tendency  of  ecclesiastical  scholarship 
to  consult  the  records  of  the  past  only  to  find  the  reflection 
of  its  own  features. 

1 


2  Early  Christianity  I 

The  general  condition  of  religion  in  the  Roman  Empire 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era  was  one  of  far 
advanced  disintegration  and  rapid  synthesis.  In  every 
district  there  could  he  found  the  remains  of  old  local 
religions,  which  retained  the  loyalty  of  the  conservative, 
but  no  longer  aroused  any  vital  response  in  the  emotions 
of  the  multitudes  or  in  the  interest  of  the  educated.  At 
that  time,  and  for  many  generations  afterward,  the  Roman 
landowners,  to  i;ake  one  example,  maintained  the  cere- 
irioiiies  and  sus  corns  of  an  agricultural  animism  which  for 
ihttir :  ancestors  had  been  a  living  religion,  but  for  them 
liakl  become  aesthetic,  conventional,  and  superstitious, — 
an  appendage  to  life,  not  its  driving  force.  Those  who 
wish  can  read  a  description  of  it,  written  with  a  sympathy 
possible  only  for  one  who  felt  the  analogy  of  his  own 
experience,  in  the  pages  of  Marius  the  Epicurean,  in  which 
Walter  Pater,  by  a  wonderful  tour  de  force,  wove  an 
exact  and  scholarly  knowledge  of  the  original  documents 
into  such  a  web  of  artistic  English  that  the  deep  learning 
of  the  book  cannot  be  appreciated  except  by  those  who 
have  some  small  share  in  it  themselves. 

Over  these  local  religions  had  been  thrown  throughout 
the  Empire  the  covering  fabric  of  Greek  mythology.  It 
had  lost  much  of  its  power;  it  was  no  longer  sincerely 
believed;  it  was  in  every  respect  decadent;  but  it  still 
played  its  part  in  unifying,  and  to  some  extent  civilising, 
the  diverse  races  of  the  Empire.  But  more  important 
than  the  Greek  mythology  was  the  Greek  philosophy, 
which  was  indeed  in  many  ways  its  antidote.  If  the 
mythology  of  Greece  appeared  to  sanction  an  infinite  num- 
ber of  gods  and  goddesses,  her  philosophers  taught  with 
equal  persuasiveness  that  the  divine  reality  is  one,  though 
its  forms  be  many.  A  remarkable  synthesis  was  thus 
gradually  accomplished,  though  it  will  always  be  a  ques- 
tion whether  the  stronger  tendency  was  to  philosophise 
mythology  or  to  mythologise  philosophy. 

Yet  another  element  was  provided  by  the  stream  of 


I  Galilee  3 

Oriental  religions  which  were  coming  into  the  Empire. 
Though  these  religions  had  all  of  them  at  one  time  been 
national,  quite  as  much  as  the  religion  of  Greece  or  Rome, 
their  adherents  had  been  detached  violently  by  the  con- 
quering hand  of  Eome  from  adherence  to  ancestral  shrines 
or  to  political  institutions.  The  Cappadocian  or  the 
Syrian,  or  even  the  Egyptian,  who  was  travelling  as  a 
merchant  or  living  as  a  slave  in  the  western  parts  of  the 
Empire,  brought  with  him  the  worship  of  his  own  god; 
but  the  changed  conditions  of  his  life  were  reflected  in 
his  religion.  As  a  political  entity  his  country  had  dis- 
appeared ;  the  institutions  which  were  originally  bound  up 
with  the  name  of  his  god  had  vanished,  and  had  become 
an  ever-fading  memory.  What  these  men  without  coun- 
tries asked  for  was  personal  salvation,  and  this  they  be- 
lieved that  they  could  find  in  their  mysterious  worship. 
Each  of  these  religions  was  rapidly  developing  in  the 
first  century  into  a  sacramental  cult  which  offered  the 
blessing  of  partial  protection  in  this  world,  and  of  a  happy 
immortality  after  death  to  all  who  accepted  and  were 
accepted  by  its  divine  lord,  and  took  part  in  its  sacra- 
ments or  mysteries. 

Much  is  obscure  in  their  history,  even  though  hypothesis 
be  given  the  widest  range  and  a  friendly  hearing.  The 
central  problem,  which  still  requires  much  further  atten- 
tion than  it  has  as  yet  received,  is  how  and  when  these 
religions  became  mystery  cults.  As  we  know  them  in 
the  Eoman  Empire  all  have  the  same  central  feature  of 
offering  personal  salvation  to  their  adherents  through 
sacraments.  But  did  they  have  this  characteristic  in  their 
original  homes,  where  they  were  national  religions  ?  The 
evidence  that  they  did  so  is  not  convincing,  and  perhaps 
cannot  be,  because  of  the  absence  of  literary  sources.  For 
instance,  one  of  the  best  known  of  these  religions  is  the 
cult  of  Isis,  for  the  nature  of  which  in  the  second  and 
third  centuries  there  is  admirable  evidence  in  the  writings 
of  Plutarch  and  Apuleius.  It  was  then  clearly  a  sacra- 


4:  Early  Christianity 

mental  religion  offering  private  salvation.  It  was  also 
connected  with  a  myth  which  was  obviously  a  hindrance 
rather  than  a  help  to  these  educated  Romans,  and  this 
myth  can  be  traced  back  to  the  monuments  of  ancient 
Egypt.  Are  we  justified  in  concluding  that  the  inter- 
pretation in  ancient  Egypt  was  the  same  as  in  imperial 
Rome?  It  may  be  so;  but  it  is  possible  that  the  sacra- 
mental nature,  though  not  the  element  of  private  salvation 
came  in,  in  Hellenistic  or  in  Imperial  times,  to  meet  the 
necessity  of  Egyptians  who  had  lost  all  sense  of  belonging 
to  a  living  nation  or  having  a  national  religion,  and  of 
Greeks  who  with  decadent  enthusiasm  desired  imported 
rites.  In  any  case,  a  synthesis  was  rapidly  established 
between  these  cults  and  the  official  Graeco-Roman  religion. 
The  names  of  the  Oriental  deities  were  Hellenised,  and 
the  barbaric  crudities  of  the  East  were  removed  by  allegory 
and  symbolism ;  the  philosophers  felt  that  the  myths  only 
needed  restatement  to  confirm  their  opinions,  while  the 
priests  were  confident  that  the  elements  of  truth  in  philos- 
ophy were  those  revealed  by  the  language  and  ritual  of 
the  cults.1 

With  considerable  rapidity,  therefore,  Greek  mythology, 
Greek  philosophy,  and  Oriental  cults  were  being  accom- 
modated to  one  another,  and  brought  together  in  a  new 
and  highly  complex  religious  system.  Eor  political  pur- 
poses the  introduction  into  this  system  of  the  worship 
of  the  emperors,  living  or  dead,  was  of  great  importance. 
It  tended  to  unify  the  whole  mass,  and  the  imperial  au- 
thorities adopted  the  position,  with  some  reservations,  that, 
provided  a  man  accepted  the  cult  of  Caesar  and  Rome,  he 
could  in  addition  be  a  member  of  any  other  religion  which 
pleased  his  fancy  or  soothed  his  soul. 

There  was  one  exception  to  the  ease  with  which  the 

1  The  best  example  of  this  method  of  "restatement"  is  probably 
Plutarch's  De  Iside  et  Osiride,  which  discusses  the  Egyptian  myth 
and  the  various  explanations  given  of  it  in  accommodation  to 
philosophic  truth.  Heathenism  did  not  long  survive  this  kind  of 
help;  nor  is  it  surprising  that  it  did  not. 


I  Galilee  S 

Oriental  cults  accepted  the  situation.  Still  inspired  by 
the  instinct  which  nine  hundred  years  before  had  made 
their  prophets  fight  against  syncretism,  the  Jews  reso- 
lutely refused  to  come  to  terms  with  heathen  religions. 
Some,  indeed,  accepted  the  Greek  philosophy,  as  the  writ- 
ings of  Philo  and  the  Wisdom  Literature  show ;  but  with 
the  cults  or  with  the  mythology  of  the  heathen  no  compro- 
mise was  tolerated. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  how  far  the  imperial 
leaders  perceived  the  process  of  synthesis,  but  consciously 
or  unconsciously  they  helped  it  considerably  by  the  policy 
which  they  adopted  towards  the  local  councils,  or  Synedria 
— Sanhedrims — as  they  were  often  called.1  They  were 
willing  to  encourage  their  continuance,  allowing  them  to 
control  all  local  questions  of  religion,  and  indeed  all  local 
interests  generally,  on  condition  that  they  made  them- 
selves also  responsible  for  the  cult  of  Eome  and  of  Caesar. 
In  this  way  Caesar  was  introduced  into  the  local  religion, 
and,  what  was  much  more  important,  the  local  religion 
was  absorbed  into  the  unified  system  of  the  Empire.  The 
policy  was  almost  uniformly  successful :  the  one  exception 
was  the  Sanhedrim  of  the  Jews,  which  obstinately  refused 
the  imperial  cult  and  resisted  Caligula's  effort  to  intro- 
duce his  statue  with  the  same  successful  pertinacity  as 
had  repelled  the  efforts  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  the 
days  of  the  Maccabees.  The  episode  ended  disastrously, 
for  the  spirit  of  nationalism  and  unreasoning  hate  to  the 
government  of  Rome  roused  a  rebellion  which  inevitably 
led  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  violent  destruction  of 
Jewish  national  life.  Henceforward  the  official  Jewish 
religion  remained  a  foreign  element  in  the  life  of  the 
western  world.  It  could  not  die,  for  in  spite  of  rabbinical 
extravagances  it  possessed  more  ethical  truth  than  heathen- 
ism, and  was  more  sincere  in  its  protest  against  supersti- 
tion. But  neither  could  it  form  a  synthesis  with  the 
better  elements  of  the  Roman  world ;  the  process  of  accom- 
1  See  Prolegomena  to  Acts,  i.  199-216. 


6  Early  Christianity  \  I 

modation  to  Greek  philosophy  was  stopped  for  many  cen- 
turies, and  the  Jew  had  neither  part  nor  lot  in  the  life  of 
the  empire  in  which  necessity  compelled  him  to  live. 

Nevertheless  in  the  end  the  inevitable  synthesis  between 
Judaism  and  Greek  thought  was  accomplished,  though  the 
official  world  was  unable  to  bring  it  about.  The  small  and 
at  first  despised  sect  of  Christians  was  driven  out  of  the 
Synagogue  and  forced  into  contact  with  the  heathen  world, 
at  first  probably  against  its  will.  There  is  nothing  to 
show  that  Christians  originally  desired  to  break  away 
from  Judaism  or  to  approach  the  Greeks;  yet  they  did 
both.  When  their  fellow-countrymen  refused  to  hear  they 
turned  to  the  Gentiles,  and  there  ensued  rapidly  the  aban- 
donment of  Jewish  practice  and  the  assimilation  of  Greek 
and  Graeco-Oriental  thought. 

From  that  time  on  the  history  of  Christianity  might 
be  written  as  a  series  of  syntheses  with  the  thought  and 
practice  of  the  Roman  world,  beginning  with  the  circum- 
ference and  moving  to  the  centre.     The  first  element 
which  was  absorbed  was  the  least  Roman,  the  Graeco- 
Oriental  cults.     Christianity  had  been  originally  the  wor- 
ship of  God,  as  he  was  understood  by  the  Jews,  combined 
with  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  he  whom  God  had  appointed, 
or  would  appoint,  as  his  representative  at  the  day  of  judge- 
ment.    To  this  were  now  joined  the  longings  for  private 
salvation  of  the  less  fortunate  classes  in  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, and  their  belief  that  this  salvation  could  come  from 
sacraments  instituted  by  a  Lord  who  was  either  divine  by 
nature  or  had  attained  apotheosis.     It  thus  became,  partly 
indeed,  the  recognition  of  the  Jewish  God  as  supreme, 
but  chiefly  tJie  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  divine  Lord 
who  had  instituted  saving  mysteries  for  those  who  accepted 
him.     Christianity  became  the  Jewish  contribution  to  the 
Oriental  cults,  offering,  as  the  Synagogue  never  did,  pri- 
vate salvation  by  supernatural  means  to  all  who  were 
willing  to  accept  it. 
•  Such  Christianity  became,  and  such  in  some  districts, 


I  Galilee  1 

notably  in  Rome,  it  remained  for  one  or  two  generations. 
But  in  Ephesus  and  possibly  elsewhere  a  further  synthesis 
was  accomplished.  This  sacramentalised  Christianity  be- 
gan to  come  to  terms  with  Greek  philosophy,  as  the  other 
mystery  religions  tried  to  do.  It  asked  what  was  the 
philosophic  explanation  of  its  Lord,  and  it  hit  on  the 
device  of  identifying  him  with  the  Logos — a  phrase  com- 
mon to  several  types  of  philosophy  though  used  in  quite 
different  meanings. 

The  development  of  this  second  synthesis  was  compara- 
tively slow.  Probably  some  of  the  systems  which  are 
loosely  described  as  gnostic  were  unsuccessful  attempts  at 
its  accomplishment ;  but  in  the  end  the  Alexandrian  theo- 
logians Clement  and  Origen  followed  the  lead  given  them 
by  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  some  of  the  apologists  to  the 
triumphant  construction  of  a  system  which  really  recon- 
ciled in  part  and  seemed  to  reconcile  entirely  the  Chris- 
tian cult  and  the  later  Platonic  metaphysics. 

Although  the  general  fabric  of  the  Christian  philosophy 
which  was  thus  built  up  was  in  the  main  Platonic,  not  a 
little  was  borrowed  also  from  the  system  of  the  Stoics,  espe- 
cially on  the  border  ground  between  metaphysics  and 
ethics.  This  paved  the  way  for  a  further  synthesis,  ac- 
complished more  easily,  more  thoroughly,  and  with  less 
perceptible  controversy  than  had  attended  either  of  the 
others. 

Probably  the  culmination  of  this  conquest  of  the 
Christian  Church  by  the  ethics  of  the  Stoa  was  reached  by 
Ambrose,  who  gave  to  the  Christian  world  Cicero's  popu- 
larisation of  Panaetius  and  Posidonius  in  a  series  of  ser- 
mons which  extracted  the  ethics  of  Rome  from  the  scrip- 
tures of  the  Christians.  The  ethics  of  the  Stoics  were 
almost  wholly  adopted  by  the  leaders  of  Christian  thought, 
especially  in  the  West,  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  rep- 
resented in  the  Gospels  was  interpreted  in  the  interests 
of  this  achievement,  which,  like  the  other  syntheses,  was 
largely  effective  in  proportion  as  it  was  unconscious. 


8  Early  Christianity  j  I 

Probably  it  was  the  early  stages  of  this  movement  which 
had  rendered  possible  the  acceptance  by  one  another  of 
Christianity  and  the  Empire.  Certainly  there  is  still 
much  need  of  study,  even  if  it  produce  only  the  statement 
of  problems,  as  to  the  changed  character  of  Christianity 
between  the  time  of  Tertullian  and  Eusebius. 

The  next  few  centuries,  so  far  as  they  were  not  occupied 
in  struggling  against  the  eclipse  of  civilisation  which  began 
in  the  fifth  century,  were  occupied  in  working  out  the 
implications  of  these  syntheses.  The  results  were  codified 
in  Catholic  theology  and  in  the  civil  and  canon  law  of  the 
early  Middle  Ages.  But  one  more  step  remained;  after 
nearly  a  thousand  years  Aristotle  was  rediscovered,  and 
the  final  Achievement  of  Christian  theology  was  the  syn- 
thesis effected  by  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  between  the  Chris- 
tian theology  and  the  philosophy  of  Aristotle. 

It  is  a  great  record  of  great  achievement,  for  no  one 
who  studies  the  history  of  religions  with  any  degree  of 
sympathetic  insight  can  doubt  but  that  each  synthesis 
was  a  real  step  in  progress  towards  that  unification  of 
aspiration  with  knowledge  which  it  is  the  task  of  theo- 
logians to  bring  about,  and  to  express  aa  clearly  as 
they  may. 

Many  centuries  have  passed  since  the  time  of  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  and  the  element  of  tragedy  in  the  study 
of  the  history  of  religions  for  the  Christian  theologian 
is  that  he  is  forced  to  admit  that  never  again  has  there 
been  a  time  when  the  unification  of  aspiration  and  knowl- 
edge has  been  so  completely  realised  by  organised  Chris- 
tianity. It  was  not  long  after  this  time  that  epoch-making 
changes  were  made,  first  in  the  domain  of  astronomy  and 
afterwards  in  other  sciences.  They  have  revolutionised 
human  knowledge.  Nor  have  human  aspirations  stayed 
where  they  were.  The  ideal  of  justice  which  men  see 
to-day  is  different  and  assuredly  better  than  that  of  a 
thousand  years  ago.  It  extends  beyond  the  sphere  of  the 
law-courts  to  every  branch  of  human  life.  But  the  doc- 

• 


I  Galilee  9 

trines  of  the  Church  remain  formulated  according  to  the 
knowledge  and  aspirations  of  the  past.  The  divergence 
between  knowledge  and  theological  statement  has  become 
more  and  more  obvious  every  year.  There  has  been  no 
synthetic  progress  in  theology  since  the  time  of  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas,1  for  it  is  impossible  for  the  student  of  history 
to  feel  that  the  Keformation  can  be  regarded  as  a  syn- 
thesis. Indeed  it  seems  ominously  like  the  first  step  in 
that  disintegration  which  has  always  been  the  last  stage 
in  the  story  of  each  religion.  It  is  absolutely  certain  that 
the  world  will  once  again  some  day  achieve  what  it  has 
often  had  and  often  lost — the  closer  approximation  of 
knowledge  and  aspiration — so  that  its  religious  system 
may  satisfy  the  soul  of  the  saint  without  disgusting  the 
intellect  of  the  scholar.  What  is  uncertain  is  whether 
this  achievement  will  be  made  by  any  form  of  organised 
Christianity  or  is  reserved  for  some  movement  which  can- 
not at  present  be  recognised.2 

To  trace  the  whole  of  these  syntheses  would  be  a  rea- 
sonable programme  for  many  volumes.  These  lectures  are 
limited  to  the  discussion  of  the  evolution  of  the  first  and 
the  beginning  of  the  second — that  is  to  say,  the  change  of 
Christianity  from  a  Jewish  sect  to  a  sacramental  cult  and 
the  beginning  of  the  movement  which  introduced  Greek 
metaphysics  into  its  theology. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  first  century  the  control  of  the 
Jewish  nation  was  in  the  hands  partly  of  Rome,  partly  of 
the  high-priests  and  their  families.  The  latter,  as  was 
natural,  held  in  the  main  a  conservative  attitude  towards 
the  laws  and  customs  of  their  people.  They  were  rich 
men — some  of  them  probably  could  appreciate  the  culture 

1  Ritschlianism  is  perhaps  an  exception:  it  did  at  least  attempt  a 
synthesis  with  science  approached  through  Kantian  philosophy.  But 
was  it  successful? 

3  No  one  has  seen  this  more  clearly,  or  expressed  it  more  vividly, 
than  the  late  George  Tyrrell,  especially  in  his  A  Much  A  bused  Letter 
and  Christianity  at  the  Cross-roads. 


10  Early  Christianity  I  I 

if  not  the  thought  of  Rome — and  the  class  in  modern 
Europe  which  most  closely  resembles  them  is  that  of  the 
aristocratic  Turks  of  Constantinople — orthodox  hut  not 
enthusiastic  adherents  of  the  religion  of  their  fathers. 
They  doubtless  regarded  themselves  as  the  leaders  of  the 
people:  it  was  with  them,  naturally  enough,  that  the 
Roman  world  had  to  deal,  and  the  price  of  their  failure 
to  keep  the  peace  between  the  populace  and  Rome  was 
their  political  extinction  and  their  personal  ruin.  The 
populace  demanded  that  the  leaders  should  secure  national 
independence;  Rome  required  that  they  should  induce 
the  people  to  cease  from  asking  it.  The  task  was  an  im- 
possible one,  but  history  does  not  accept  impossibility  as 
an  excuse  for  failure. 

Closely  connected  with  them  were  the  Herods,  who  at 
intervals  assumed  a  more  or  less  dominating  influence  in 
Jewish  affairs.  At  the  time  of  Christ  one  of  the  family 
was  ruling  over  Galilee,  and  another  was  destined  in  a 
short  time  to  inherit  not  only  this  dominion  but  also  that 
of  Judaea.  But  though  for  political  purposes  the  Herods 
were  capable  of  playing  Jewish  cards,  they  had  become 
completely  absorbed  into  the  cosmopolitan  society  of  the 
Empire.  They  were  as  little  typical  of  anything  really 
Jewish  as  an  educated  Indian  prince  frequenting  London 
society  is  typical  of  Hinduism. 

Ultimately  more  important  than  the  high-priests  or  the 
Herods  were  two  other  classes  which  were  destined  re- 
spectively to  ruin  their  nation  and  to  save  their  church. 
The  one  was  the  party  of  the  patriots,  the  other  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees. 

After  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great  the  Romans  made  a 
census  of  his  country,  and  a  certain  Judas  of  Galilee  en- 
deavoured to  raise  an  active  rebellion.  The  influence  of 
the  ruling  classes  in  Jerusalem  suppressed  this  movement 
for  the  time,  but  it  remained,  as  Josephus  1  terms  it,  the 

1  Josephus,  Antiq.  xviii.  1.  1  and  6.  See  also  Prolegomena  to  Acts, 
i.  421  ft. 


I  Galilee  11 

fourth  philosophy,  or  sect,  among  the  Jews,  maintaining 
that  no  pious  Jew  could  recognise  any  ruler  except  God, 
and  steadily  insisting  that  active  resistance  to  the  power 
of  Rome  was  justifiable  and  even  necessary.  The  sect 
apparently  remained  anonymous  until  about  A.D.  66,  when 
one  branch  of  those  who  accepted  its  tenets  took  to  them- 
selves the  name  of  Zealots  and  were  largely  instrumental 
in  bringing  about  those  final  disturbances  which  led  to  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem.  We  know  very  little  of  this  party 
except  from  Josephus,  and  the  reasons  for  which  his  book 
was  written  did  not  encourage  him  to  give  unnecessary 
information,  but,  judging  by  results,  the  fourth  philosophy 
must  have  been  in  the  first  half  of  the  first  century  a 
steadily  growing  menace  to  all  organised  government,  will- 
ing to  destroy  but  unable  to  build,  concealing  under  the 
name  of  patriotism  that  pathological  excitement  which  is 
the  delirium  of  diseased  nations. 

It  is  possible,  but  not  certain,  that  these  Jews  were  in- 
fluenced by  and  possibly  helped  to  produce  some  parts  of 
that  curious  literature  known  as  Apocalypses,1  which 
seems  in  the  main  to  have  been  intended  to  comfort  the 
discouraged  and  to  inspire  them  with  enthusiasm  by  giv- 
ing them  the  assurance  that  a  better  time  was  at  hand. 

A  very  different  type  of  Jew  was  represented  by  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees.  They  believed  implicitly  that  the 
law  of  Moses  and  the  tradition  of  the  elders  had  a  divine 
sanction,  and  that  to  live  in  accordance  with  it,  not  to 
take  part  in  political  intrigue,  was  the  way  of  Life.  Their 
main  object  was  to  interpret  the  Law  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  it  possible  to  follow,  and  to  extend  its  explanation 
so  as  to  cover  every  possible  problem  in  practical  life. 
They  were  opposed  to  Jesus  during  his  life,  and  after- 
wards bitterly  opposed  to  his  followers.  It  is  therefore 

JThi8  literature  is  now  available  as  a  whole  in  R.  H.  Charles, 
Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha. 


12  Early  Christianity  I 

natural  that  there  is  in  the  Christian  Scriptures  a  large 
amount  of  polemic  against  the  Pharisees,1  and  there 
would  be  probably  more  against  the  Christians  in  the  rab- 
binical writings  had  it  not  been  for  the  activities  of  the 
mediaeval  censors,  so  that  statements  in  the  Talmud  which 
originally  referred  to  the  Christians  are  concealed  (some- 
times obviously  but  in  other  cases  probably  successfully) 
by  being  referred  to  the  Sadducees  or  other  extinct  parties 
of  Jews  for  whose  reputation  neither  Synagogue  nor 
Church  cared. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  generations  of  Christians  have 
seen  the  early  history  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  almost 
wholly  through  glasses  coloured  by  early  controversy,  it 
is  hard  to  be  fair  to  the  Pharisees.  Taken  at  their  best 
they  probably  represent  the  highest  form  of  a  religion 
based  on  codified  ethics  which  the  world  has  ever  seen. 
They  did  not  feel  that  the  Law  was  external,  for  it  repre- 
sented the  will  of  the  Father,  which  could  not  be  alien  to 
that  of  his  children  if  they  understood  it  aright.  The 
"word"  was  not  in  heaven  or  across  the  sea,  but  very  nigh 
unto  them,  in  their  mouth  and  in  their  heart  that  they 
might  do  it  That  is  to  say,  the  Law  was  not  something 
imposed  entirely  from  without  by  a  wholly  external  au- 
thority, but  was  rather  the  very  perfect  expression  of  what 
man  would  of  himself  choose  to  do  if  he  had  perfect  knowl- 
edge. Thus  the  best  of  the  Pharisees  no  doubt  felt  that 
obedience  to  the  Law  and  to  tradition  was  a  labour  of  love, 
and  the  story  which  is  told  of  the  death  of  Akiba  may  be 
regarded  as  typical  of  the  best  both  of  his  predecessors 
and  successors.  He  was  being  put  to  death  by  torture 
when  the  hour  came  that  every  pious  Jew  repeats  the 

JThe  suggestion  has  even  been  made  that  some  of  the  polemic  in 
the  gospels,  which  is — as  the  text  stands — directed  against  the 
Pharisees  and  Rabbis,  was  historically  intended  for  the  Sadducees. 
It  was  too  important  to  be  lost,  and,  as  those  who  were  originally 
attacked  had  ceased  to  be  important,  it  was  turned  against  the  only 
Jewish  party  which  still  survived  to  oppose  Christianity  at  the  time 
when  the  gospels  were  written.  See  also  p.  24. 


I  Galilee  13 

Shema,  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart  and  with  all  thy  soul."  He  recited  as  far  as  "with 
all  thy  heart/'  and  then  stopped  and  smiled.  "How,"  said 
one  of  the  bystanders,  "can  you  smile  when  you  are  dying 
in  agony?"  "Every  day,"  he  replied,  "have  I  repeated 
these  words,  and  I  could  say  without  hesitation  that  I 
loved  the  Lord  with  all  my  heart,  but  to  say  that  I  loved 
him  with  all  my  soul,  that  is  to  say,  with  all  my  life,  was 
hard,  for  how  can  a  man  say  what  he  has  done  with  his 
life  before  the  day  of  his  death  ?  But  now  that  the  day 
of  my  death  has  come  and  the  hour  for  repeating  the 
Shema  has  returned,  and  I  have  loved  the  Lord  my  God 
with  all  my  heart  and  with  all  my  life,  why  should  I  not 
smile?"1  * 

It  is  not  surprising  that  it  was  the  school  of  these  men 
who  saved  the  Jewish  Church  from  extinction  when  the 
nation  was  destroyed;  neither  is  it  surprising,  though  it 
is  sad,  that  there  was  deep  hatred  between  them  and  the 
Christians;  for  in  religion,  as  in  other  things,  a  really 
lively  hatred  requires  some  degree  of  relationship. 

It  was  into  this  world  of  Jewish  thought  and  practice 
that  Jesus  came  preaching  in  Galilee.  The  content  of  his 
preaching  is  given  by  Mark  as  "Repent,  for  the  Kingdom 
of  Heaven  is  at  hand."  Therefore  the  two  questions  of 
primary  importance  are  the  meaning  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  or  Kingdom  of  God,  and  of  repentance. 

The  phrase  "the  Kingdom  of  Heaven"  is  common  in  the 
later  Jewish  literature  and  familiar  in  Christian  ears. 
But  it  is  not  actually  found  before  the  Christian  era, 
though  similar  expressions  were  customary,  and  the  con- 
cept which  it  covers  is  often  met  with  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  means  primarily  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  the 

1  This  is  a  free  rendering,  somewhat  paraphrased  to  bring  out  the 
meaning,  of  the  account  of  the  martyrdom  of  Akiba  under  Tinnius 
(Turnus)  Rufus  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  (Berakh.  ix.  7).  See 
Prolegomena  to  Acts}  I.  62. 


14:  Early  Christianity  1 

world,  not  a  kingdom  in  the  local  sense,  or  even  in  the 
sense  of  an  organisation.  Though  in  the  Old  Testament 
God  is  frequently  referred  to  as  a  king  whose  rule  is  uni- 
versal even  now,  the  dominion  of  a  king  is  not  complete 
or  perfect  unless  he  be  recognised  by  his  subjects,  and  the 
dominion  of  God  is  not  yet  thus  recognised  or  submitted 
to  throughout  the  world.  The  Jewish  view  seems  to  have 
been  that  men  had  fallen  away  from  the  rule  of  God  in 
the  days  before  Abraham,  and  that  when  Abraham  recog- 
nised the  Lord  as  his  God,  then  for  him — but  not  for 
others — the  sovereignty  of  God  was  complete.  Similarly, 
when  Israel  recognised  the  Lord  as  their  God  there  was  a 
nation  which  accepted  the  sovereignty  of  God.  The  time 
would  come  when  all  the  world  would  make  this  same 
recognition,  but  the  day  was  not  yet  present,  and  there 
was  more  than  one  opinion  as  to  the  probable  course  of 
events  which  would  lead  up  to  it. 

In  general  the  Jews  believed  that  the  universal  recog- 
nition of  the  sovereignty  of  God  would  bring  about,  or 
would  at  least  be  coincident  with,  the  coming  of  the 
Golden  Age,  so  frequently  spoken  of  by  the  prophets,  and 
described  with  imaginative  profusion  in  the  apocalyptic 
writings.  But  it  is  by  no  means  always  clear  whether  the 
Golden  Age  was  the  condition  or  the  result  of  the  coming 
of  the  Kingdom.  Would  the  heathen,  who  knew  not  God, 
be  converted  or  be  exterminated  ?  It  is  not  surprising  if 
there  was  a  tendency  to  confuse  the  recognition  of  the 
sovereignty  of  God  with  the  phenomena  attending  it,  and 
to  speak  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  when  the  conditions  of 
its  attainment  were  really  meant. 

There  were  two  special  features  in  the  Jewish  expecta- 
tion of  the  future  recognition  of  the  sovereignty  of  God 
which  were  especially  liable  to  be  confused  with  it  in  this 
manner.  In  the  first  place,  some  of  the  prophets  had 
spoken  of  the  coming  of  the  Golden  Age  and  the  restora- 
tion of  the  national  fortunes  of  Israel.  Sometimes  this 
restoration  had  been  associated  with  the  house  of  David, 


1  Galilee  15 

sometimes  with  the  dynasty  of  the  high  priest;  hut  fre- 
quently no  such  association  was  present,  and  Christian 
scholarship  has  in  general  greatly  exaggerated  the  amount 
of  evidence,  especially  for  a  Davidic  king.  The  reason 
for  this  exaggeration  is  partly  verbal.  The  custom  has 
arisen  of  speaking  of  this  Golden  Age  as  the  "Messianic" 
Age,  which  can  only  mean  the  age  in  which  the  "Messiah" 
will  appear.  "Messiah"  is  itself  a  technical  term,  hut 
"Messianic"  can  only  be  applied  to  a  person  appointed 
by  God  to  some  high  office,  and  to  a  period  of  history 
only  if  such  a  person  be  central  in  it.  The  really  most 
striking  feature  of  most  of  the  descriptions  of  the  Golden 
Age  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  apocalyptic  books  is 
that  there  is  no  mention  of  any  Messiah  at  all.  But  the 
later  literature  emphasised  the  coming  of  King  Messiah, 
and  the  Jews  therefore  refer  to  this  period  as  "the  days 
of  the  Messiah."  There  is  no  evidence  that  this  phrase 
was  used  until  after  the  Christian  era.  For  this  reason  it 
is  a  great  pity  that  scholars,  who  personally,  of  course, 
know  better,  constantly  use  so  misleading  a  term  as  the 
Messianic  Age.  It  would  be  far  better  if  it  were  de- 
scribed as  the  "Golden  Age"  or  the  "good  time."  x 

This  whole  conception  of  the  coming  Golden  Age  was 
in  essence  peculiarly  Jewish,  though  parallels  can  be  found 
in  the  religion  of  all  nations.  Cognate  to  it  was  another 
point  of  view  which  was  not  originally  Jewish,  but  had 
probably  been  taken  over  by  the  Jews  from  Persian 
thought.  This  was  the  expectation  of  the  Age  to  Come, 
which  plays  so  large  a  part  in  the  fourth  book  of  Ezra  2 

*J.  Klausner's  Die  messianische  Vorstellungen  des  jiidisohen 
Volkea  im  Zeitalter  der  Tannaiten  is  probably  the  clearest  statement 
of  the  facts. 

"The  fourth  book  of  Ezra  is  in  many  ways  the  finest  of  all  Apoc- 
alypses, and  the  English  authorised  version  (in  which  it  is  called 

2  Esdras)  is  a  magnificent  piece  of  English,  needing,  however,  occa- 
sional elucidation  and  correction  by  the  critical  editions  of  G.  H. 
Box,  The  Ezra  Apocalypse,  and  of  B.  Violet,  in  the  edition  of  the 
Greek  Christian  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries  published  by  the 
Berlin  Academy. 


16  Early  Christianity  I 

and  in  the  later  literature.  An  integral  part  of  the  Per- 
sian system  was  the  belief  that  the  world  would  come 
to  an  end  and  be  consumed  by  fire  which  would  purify 
it  from  evil,  after  which  the  righteous  would  be  raised 
from  the  dead  and  take  part  in  the  glorious  life  of  a  new 
world.  A  supernatural  figure  known  as  the  Shaoshyant 
would  take  part  in  this  process,  and  especially  in  the 
Judgement  which  would  decide  whether  men  should  or 
should  not  pass  on  into  the  life  of  the  Age  to  Come. 

From  the  time  of  Daniel,  if  not  earlier,  these  ideas  had 
been  absorbed  by  the  Jews,  and  though  belief  in  a  resur- 
rection was  not  universal  it  had  been  accepted  by  the 
Pharisees,  and  was  probably  more  popular  than  either 
the  ancient  Jewish  belief  in  Sheol  or  the  imported  Greek 
belief  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  of  which  traces  can 
be  found  in  the  Wisdom  Literature.  All  this  is,  however, 
different  from  the  ancient  Jewish  tradition  of  a  Golden 
Age  in  this  world,  and  there  are  plain  traces  in  Jewish 
literature  of  the  attempt  to  reconcile  the  two  systems. 

It  was  obviously  possible,  by  dint  of  a  comparatively 
small  confusion  of  thought,  to  identify  the  Golden  Age 
with  the  Age  to  Come,  and  to  suppose  that  all  the  unful- 
filled features  of  the  visions  of  the  earlier  prophets  would 
be  realised  in  the  Age  to  Come.  In  this  case  the  figure 
of  the  Davidic  king,  if  he  happened  to  be  part  of  the  pic- 
ture, could  easily  be  transplanted  into  the  Age  to  Come, 
and  whereas  in  the  earlier  presentation  he  had  the  special 
function  of  destroying  in  a  holy  war  the  enemies  of  Israel, 
he  could  now  have  the  more  universal  responsibility  of 
abolishing  all  evil,  and  of  acting  as  judge  to  decide  who 
should  enter  into  the  new  world. 

It  is  on  general  principles  entirely  probable  that  some 
such  accommodation  of  thought  was  effected  in  some 
Jewish  circles,  as  it  was  afterwards  among  the  Christians. 
But  there  is  comparatively  little  evidence  that  such  was 
actually  the  case.  Especially  is  there  very  little  evidence 
that  the  anointed  Son  of  David  was  transmuted  in  this 


I  Galileo  17 

fashion.  The  most  that  can  be  said  is  that  some  of  the 
many  titles  which  were  applied  to  the  expected  Davidic 
king  were  also  applied  to  the  expected  supernatural  judge. 
But  identity  of  title  does  not  always  mean  identity  of 
person,  and  the  general  descriptions  of  the  two  figures 
are  as  a  rule  quite  separate.  It  would  appear  that  on  the 
whole  the  better  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ  were  looking 
for  the  End  of  the  Age  and  the  Kesurrection,  rather  than 
for  the  restoration  of  the  kingdom  of  David,  but  that  there 
was  a  popular  minority  which  still  had  hopes  of  the 
restoration  of  the  monarchy. 

The  most  thorough  attempt  to  reconcile  the  two  lines 
of  thought  is  to  be  found  in  the  fourth  book  of  Ezra,  which 
elaborates  a  complete  combination  of  both  systems  with 
a  clearness  quite  unusual  in  apocalyptic  literature.  Ac- 
cording to  this  the  time  was  approaching  when  the  Mes- 
siah, by  which  is  clearly  meant  the  king  of  Israel,  would 
appear,  destroy  all  opposition,  and  reign  for  four  hundred 
years.  He  and  all  mankind  would  then  die.  The  world 
would  come  to  an  end  and  be  restored  to  primaeval  silence. 
Then  would  follow  the  Kesurrection  and  Judgement,  and 
the  beginning  of  the  Age  to  Come.  All  the  features  of 
both  systems  are  thus  combined,  except  that  it  appears 
that  the  Judgement  is  the  act  of  God  himself,  rather  than 
of  an  especially  appointed  representative. 

The  general  result  of  reading  the  literature  belonging 
to  this  period  is  to  create  the  impression  that  recent  schol- 
arship has  gone  much  further  than  is  justifiable  in  the 
attempt  to  systematise  Jewish  thought  on  eschatology.  It 
has  succumbed  too  readily  to  the  temptation  to  find  sys- 
tem where  there  is  none,  to  base  a  chronological  develop- 
ment of  thought  on  the  discovery,  and  finally  to  emend 
the  texts  in  its  light,  and  sometimes  in  its  aid.  It  seems 
extremely  doubtful  whether  there  was  any  "generally  rec- 
ognised" Jewish  teaching  on  this  subject.  The  belief  that 
Grod  would  deliver  his  people,  and  that  his  sovereignty 
would  be  recognised  throughout  the  world,  was  no  doubt 


18  Early  Christianity  I 

part  of  the  belief  of  every  pious  Jew,  but  the  details  were 
vague  and  there  was  no  systematic  teaching  on  them. 

If  we  turn  to  the  gospels  we  find  that  the  Kingdom  of 
God  is  sometimes  looked  for  in  the  future,  sometimes  re- 
garded as  a  present  reality.  Scholarship  in  the  last  fifteen 
years  has  passed  through  a  period  in  which  the  presence 
of  these  two  elements  has  been  somewhat  hotly  debated. 
The  beginning  of  the  discussion  was  probably  the  publica- 
tion of  Johannes  Weiss'  monograph  x  on  the  preaching  of 
Jesus  as  to  the  Kingdom  of  God,  in  which  he  emphasised 
the  future  aspect  of  the  Kingdom.  The  question  was, 
however,  presented  with  greater  perspective  as  to  its  posi- 
tion in  the  history  of  criticism  by  A.  Schweitzer  in  a 
book  which  he  called  Von  Reimarus  zu  Wrede.  This  was 
translated  into  English,2  a  fate  denied  to  Weiss,  with  the 
result  that  in  England  and  America  the  whole  problem  was 
associated  with  Schweitzer's  name.  The  position  adopted 
by  these  writers  was  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  mainly 
eschatological,  that  is  to  say,  it  looked  forward  to  the 
coming  of  the  end  of  the  world.  In  the  enthusiasm  of 
the  rediscovery  of  this  point  of  view — by  no  means  un- 
known to  our  ancestors,  and  universal  in  the  early  Church 
— Schweitzer  and  others  went  rather  further  than  the  evi- 
dence permitted,  and  endeavoured  to  explain  eschatologi- 
cally  passages  not  susceptible  of  that  meaning,  but  that 
does  not  excuse  the  foolish  acrimony  with  which  the  less 
learned,  especially  among  liberal  Protestants,  assailed 
them,  nor  the  attempt  to  cut  out  from  the  text  of  the  gos- 
pels all  eschatological  reference. 

At  present  the  question  has  apparently  reached  equilib- 
rium by  the  general  recognition  that  it  is  impossible  to 
excise  or  to  explain  away  the  passages  in  the  gospels  in 
which  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  clearly  regarded  as 
future,  and  that  it  is  equally  impossible  to  ignore  those 

1 J.  Weiss,  Die  Predigt  Jesu  vom  Reiche  Gottes.    The  first  edition 
of  this  book  is  smaller  and  better  than  the  second. 
J  The  Quest  of  the  Historic  Jesus. 


I  Galilee  19 

in  which  it  is  regarded  as  a  present  reality.  Probably, 
however,  it  has  even  now  not  been  sufficiently  perceived 
that  the  solution  of  the  problem  is  not  to  be  found  in 
the  literary  criticism  of  the  gospels,  but  in  the  history  of 
the  phrase,  Kingdom  of  God.  This  rendered  inevitable 
the  double  use  of  the  phrase.  Sometimes  it  was  used 
strictly,  and  referred  to  a  present  reality  within  the  grasp 
of  all  willing  to  reach  out  to  it,  and  accept  the  conditions 
imposed  on  its  attainment,  of  which  Jesus  was  so  fre- 
quently speaking.  But  at  other  times,  by  an  entirely 
natural  extension  of  its  meaning,  it  was  used  of  the  period 
when  the  recognition  of  the  sovereignty  of  God  would  be 
universal.  In  this  sense  it  was  still  future.  It  was  at 
hand,  but  not  yet  present,  even  though  that  generation 
would  not  entirely  pass  away  before  it  was  accomplished. 
There  is  no  exegetical  obstacle  to  accepting  this  view,  for 
it  is  the  plain  and  simple  meaning  of  simple  phrases ;  but 
there  is  the  theological  difficulty  that  it  represents  an 
expectation  on  the  part  of  Jesus  which  was  falsified  by 
history.1  That  generation  has  passed  away,  and  many 
others  after  it,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  has  not  yet  come. 
Indeed,  it  is  scarcely  orthodox  any  longer  to  expect  it  in 
the  manner  in  which  the  gospels  represent  Jesus  to  have 
foretold  its  coming. 

But  even  when  it  is  conceded  that  Jesus  in  some  places 
in  the  gospels  did  undoubtedly  contemplate  the  coming  of 
the  Kingdom  in  the  future,  it  remains  a  problem,  which 
has  as  yet  attracted  too  little  attention,  whether  he  identi- 
fied the  eschatological  phenomena  attending  its  coming 
with  the  reign  of  the  anointed  scion  of  the  house  of  David, 
or  with  the  end  of  this  age  and  the  inauguration  of  the  Age 
to  Come.  In  general  it  seems  to  me  far  more  likely  that 
he  looked  for  the  Age  to  Come  rather  than  for  the  reign 
of  the  Son  of  David,  though  the  evidence  is  admittedly 
not  very  full  or  entirely  satisfactory.  It  is,  however,  at 

1 1  have  endeavoured  to  deal  with  this  question  in  the  Stewardship 
of  Faith,  pp.  36  S. 


20  Early  Christianity  I 

least  clear  that  in  his  answer  to  the  young  man  who  asked 
Jesus  what  he  should  do,1  eternal  life  is  treated  as  synony- 
mous with  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  young  man  asked 
what  was  necessary  to  inherit  eternal  life,  and  when  Jesus 
told  him  that  he  should  observe  the  commandments,  sell 
all  that  he  had  and  give  to  the  poor,  he  was  grieved. 
Jesus  then  said,  "How  hardly  will  those  that  have  riches 
enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God."  Obviously  eternal  life 
and  the  Kingdom  of  God  are  here  identical,  and  there  is 
no  doubt  that  the  Jews  expected  eternal  life  in  the  Age 
to  Come,  not  in  the  Days  of  the  Messiah.  Moreover,  the 
continuation  of  the  narrative — the  implied  question  of 
Peter,  "Lo,  we  have  left  all  and  followed  thee" — intro- 
duces the  statement  of  Jesus,  "There  is  no  one  who  has 
left  home,  or  brothers,  or  sisters,  or  mother,  or  father,  or 
children,  or  lands,  for  my  sake  and  for  the  good  news, 
who  shall  not  receive  a  hundredfold  now  in  this  time — 
houses,  and  brothers,  and  sisters,  and  mothers,  and  chil- 
dren, and  lands,  with  persecutions,  and  in  the  Age  to 
Come  life  everlasting."  The  distinction  here  between 
"this  time"  and  the  Age  to  Come  is  entirely  Jewish,  and 
shows  that  in  the  previous  paragraph  the  Kingdom  of  God 
and  eternal  life  were  associated  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  with 
the  Age  to  Come. 

But,  it  may  be  said,  did  not  Jesus  identify  himself  with 
the  Davidic  Messiah?  Undoubtedly  his  disciples  did  so 
in  the  circles  represented  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  but  it  is 
doubtful  whether  the  gospel  of  Mark  represents  this  point 
of  view,  and  the  question  of  Jesus  to  the  Pharisees,  how 
David  in  the  Scriptures  could  call  the  Messiah  Lord  if  he 
were  his  son,  is  pointless,  except  on  the  assumption  that 
Jesus  did  not  regard  himself  as  the  Son  of  David.2  On 
the  other  hand,  the  identification  of  Jesus  with  the  Son 
of  Man,  whether  by  himself  or  by  his  disciples,  can  in  no 
case  affect  the  question,  because  the  figure  of  the  Son  of 
Man  in  Jewish  literature  is  an  integral  part  of  the  inau- 

1  Mark  x.  17  ff.  a  Mark  xii.  35. 


I  Galilee  21 

Duration  of  the  Age  to  Come,  not  of  the  reign  of  the 
Davidic  king. 

Thus  it  seems  probable  that  one  part  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  was  the  announcement  that  this  age  is  coming  to  its 
end  and  that  the  Age  to  Come  is  rapidly  approaching, 
when  the  Kingdom  of  God  will  be  universally  realised. 
Those  who  wish  to  pass  on  into  the  life  of  the  New  Age 
must  prepare  themselves  by  accepting  already  the  sov- 
ereignty of  God  at  whatever  cost  it  may  be.  Nothing 
physicial  or  social  must  be  allowed  to  stand  in  the 
way;  relations,  property,  eyesight,  hands  or  feet  must 
all  be  sacrificed  if  they  stand  between  man  and  his 
perfect  acceptance  of  God's  sovereignty  1 ;  few  men  have 
lived  up  to  this  standard,  and  to  reach  it  they  must 
repent. 

Kepentance  to  a  Jew  in  the  first  century  meant  pri- 
marily change  of  conduct,  but  it  is  a  misunderstanding  of 
the  Jewish  position  to  suppose  that  by  this  they  excluded 
or  indeed  did  not  definitely  intend  a  change  of  heart.  A 
typical  example  of  the  meaning  of  repentance  in  Jewish 
literature  is  the  story  of  Rabbi  Eliezer  ben  Durdaiya,2 
who  was  famous  for  his  consistently  immoral  life,  but  was 
stung  to  the  heart  one  day  when  one  of  his  companions 
casually  remarked  that  for  him  at  least  no  repentance 
could  avail.  Then,  continues  the  story,  he  went  forth, 
and  sat  between  the  hills,  and  said,  "Ye  mountains  and 
hills,  seek  mercy  for  me."  But  they  said,  "Before  we 
seek  mercy  for  you,  we  must  seek  it  for  ourselves,  for  it 
is  said,  The  mountains  shall  depart  and  the  hills  be  re- 
moved." Then  he  said,  "Heaven  and  earth,  ask  mercy 
for  me."  But  they  said,  "Before  we  ask  mercy  for  you, 
we  must  ask  it  for  ourselves,  as  it  is  said,  The  heavens  shall 
vanish  like  smoke,  and  the  earth  shall  wax  old  as  a  gar- 
ment." Then  he  said,  "Sun  and  moon,  ask  mercy  for 
me."  But  they  said,  "Before  we  ask  for  you,  we  must  ask 

1  Mark  ix.  43  ff. ;  cf .  Matt.  v.  29  ff. 

'Quoted  by  C.  Q.  Montefiore  in  the  Prolegomena  to  Aots,  pp.  71  f. 


22  Early  Christianity  I 

for  ourselves,  as  it  is  said,  The  moon  shall  be  confounded, 
and  the  sun  ashamed."  Then  he  said,  "Planets  and  stars, 
ask  mercy  for  ma"  But  they  said,  "Before  we  ask  for 
you,  we  must  ask  for  ourselves,  as  it  is  said,  All  the 
hosts  of  heaven  shall  be  dissolved,  and  the  heaven  shall 
be  rolled  up  as  a  scroll."  Then  he  said,  "The  matter  de- 
pends wholly  upon  me."  He  sank  his  head  between  his 
knees,  and  cried  and  wept  so  long  that  his  soul  went  forth 
from  him.  Then  a  heavenly  voice  was  heard  to  say, 
"Rabbi  Eliezer  ben  Durdaiya  has  been  appointed  to  the 
life  of  the  world  to  come."  But  Rabbi  Jehudah  I.,  the 
Patriarch,  wept  and  said,  "There  are  those  who  acquire 
the  world  to  come  in  years  upon  years;  there  are  those 
who  acquire  it  in  an  hour."  The  story  is  an  admirable 
parallel  to  that  of  the  Prodigal  Son  and  shows  that  the 
best  rabbinical  and  the  best  Christian  teaching  on  repent- 
ance were  identical  as  to  its  nature  and  efficacy. 

It  is  thus  clear  that  there  was  not  any  essential  dif- 
ference between  Jesus  and  his  contemporaries  as  to  either 
the  meaning  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  or  the  necessity  and 
power  of  repentance.  The  difference  between  them  came 
in  the  kind  of  conduct  which  was  necessary  for  member- 
ship in  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  prescribed  for  repent- 
ance. It  was  at  this  point  that  Jesus  came  into  sharp 
conflict  with  the  two  parties  previously  described,  the 
Fourth  Philosophy  and  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees. 

The  difference  between  Jesus  and  the  Pharisees  was 
one  of  interpretation.  Both  he  and  they  regarded  the 
Law  as  the  revelation  of  God's  will,  and  Jesus  himself 
was  emphatic  in  declaring  that  it  was  binding  and  that 
he  did  not  wish  to  destroy  it.  But  the  Pharisees  en- 
deavoured to  make  the  Law  cover  every  detail  of  human 
life  by  combining  it  with  clever  verbal  interpretations 
which  stretched  its  meaning  in  every  direction.  Jesus, 
on  the  other  hand,  appealed  from  the  letter  of  the  Law 
to  its  original  purpose,  which  he  held  to  be  the  benefit  of 


I  Galilee  v  23 

man.1  If,  therefore,  there  was  any  contradiction  between 
the  letter  of  the  Law  and  its  original  purpose,  it  was  the 
purpose  which  was  dominant.  No  one  can  doubt  that  in 
this  respect  Jesus  followed  a  principle  incontestably  cor- 
rect but  extraordinarily  difficult  of  application.  It  con- 
tains, moreover,  implicit  in  it  an  appeal  to  conscience, 
for  it  was  really  by  this  rather  than  by  historic  knowledge 
that  the  ultimate  purpose  of  the  Law  was  revealed.  The 
final  test  of  formularies  which  appeal  to  the  intellect  is 
whether  they  are  true  and  of  codes  defining  conduct 
whether  they  are  right,  but  the  perception  of  truth  and  of 
right  depends  in  the  end  on  reason  and  on  conscience,2 
and  the  difficulty  and  obscurity  which  attend  their  appli- 
cation constantly  frighten  men  into  trying  to  substitute 
some  easier  way  for  that  of  Jesus :  but  here  too  the  saying 
is  true  that  "narrow  is  the  way  that  leadeth  unto  life." 

Far  more  deep-seated  was  the  difference  between  Jesus 
and  the  Fourth  Philosophy.  It  is  only  necessary  to  put 
oneself  back  in  the  position  of  a  Jew  of  Galilee  in  the  first 
century,  inspired  by  the  patriotic  teaching  of  Judas  of 
Galilee  and  his  followers,  to  understand  how  extraordi- 
narily unpopular  the  teaching  of  Jesus  must  have  been  in 
Galilee.  Such  a  Jew  believed  that  the  continuance  of  the 
Roman  rule  was  an  intolerable  injustice,  that  it  ought 
not  to  be  endured,  that  resistance  to  it  was  right  and 

1  See  Mark  ii.  27.  For  the  meaning  of  Son  of  Man  in  this  passage 
see  p.  38. 

"Neither  reason  nor  conscience  is  infallible:  the  tribunal  of  his- 
tory condemns  many  actions  which  were  undoubtedly  dictated  by 
conscience.  Nevertheless  we  have  no  better  guides  in  action,  and 
both  reason  and  conscience  have  the  peculiarity  that  the  more  they 
are  used  the  better  do  they  become,  and  conversely  that  if  they  be 
neglected  they  cease  to  be  available  in  time  of  need.  Men  who 
habitually  use  their  powers  in  order  to  circumvent  either  conscience 
or  reason  in  the  end  find  they  are  unable  to  use  them  at  all.  The 
distinction  between  right  and  wrong  disappears  when  conscience 
dies,  and  that  between  fact  and  fiction  when  reason  is  neglected. 
The  one  is  the  danger  which  besets  clever  politicians,  the  other  the 
nemesis  which  waits  on  popular  preachers. 


24  Early  Christianity  '  I 

proper  and  would  be  crowned  with  success  by  the  inter- 
vention of  God.  If  he  heard  Jesus  say,  "Love  your 
enemies,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  bless  them  that 
curse  you  ...  as  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you 
do  ye  to  them  likewise;  for  if  ye  love  them  that  love  you 
what  thank  have  you  .  .  .  love  ye  your  enemies,"  what 
would  such  a  man  have  thought  ?  In  the  light  of  the  ex- 
periences of  our  own  time  there  is  no  reason  for  wonder 
that  Jesus  in  the  end  found  it  impossible  to  live  in  Galilee. 
The  marvel  is  that  he  escaped  with  his  life. 

The  contrast  between  such  teaching  and  that  of  the 
Fourth  Philosophy  is  so  obvious  that  it  could  never  either 
escape  attention  or  be  denied  if  it  were  not  for  the  absence 
of  any  definite  mention  of  this  party  in  the  gospels.  The 
probable  explanation  is  that  by  the  time  that  the  gospels 
were  written  the  Fourth  Philosophy  had  ceased  to  exist, 
and  that  in  Greek  circles  this  party  was  never  prominent. 
The  result  was  that  there  was  no  reason  to  perpetuate  any 
tradition  as  to  controversy  between  Jesus  and  the  Fourth 
Philosophy.  The  only  dispute  with  the  Jews  in  which 
the  Christians  of  the  generation  that  produced  the  gospels 
were  interested  was  that  with  the  rabbis,  the  lineal  de- 
scendants of  the  Pharisees.  Thus  they  preserved  the  story 
of  arguments  between  Jesus  and  the  Pharisees,  but  not 
between  him  and  the  representatives  of  other  schools. 
This,  however,  did  not  mean  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
called  out  by  the  Fourth  Philosophy  was  not  preserved. 
The  teaching  itself  was  given,  but,  just  as  in  the  Talmud 
the  sayings  of  rabbis  are  often  given  without  historic  con- 
text, so  also  in  Christian  tradition  the  sayings  of  Jesus 
usually  appear  without  the  incidents  which  had  called 
them  out.  In  exactly  the  same  way,  except  for  the  final 
scene  in  Jerusalem,  the  priests  and  Sadducees  are  not 
mentioned ;  they  played  no  part  in  the  life  of  the  Christian 
generation  which  produced  the  gospels.  There  was,  how- 
ever, a  special  reason  why  the  non-resistant  teaching  of 
Jesus  should  be  preserved  even  when  its  historic  back- 


I  Galilee  25 

ground  waa  lost.  Though  the  Fourth  Philosophy  had 
ceased  to  have  any  contact  with  the  Church,  the  persecu- 
tion of  Christians  was  an  actual  problem,  and  the  prac- 
tical difficulty  of  right  conduct  under  its  stress  kept  alive 
teaching  which  might  otherwise  have  been  forgotten. 

The  question  is  sometimes  asked  whether  such  teaching 
is  really  consistent  with  the  violent  cleansing  of  the 
Temple.  The  true  answer  is  probably  not  to  be  found  in 
any  ingenious  harmonisation,  but  rather  in  accentuating 
the  fact  that  the  "non-resistant"  teaching  in  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  deals  with  the  line  of  conduct  to  be  observed  to- 
wards foreign  oppressors  and  violence  from  without.  The 
sacerdotal  money-changers  and  sellers  of  doves  in  the 
Temple  were  not  the  "oppressors  of  Israel."  Israel  was 
called  on  to  suffer  under  Roman  rule,  and  the  righteous 
to  endure  violence  at  the  hands  of  the  wicked,  for  that 
was  the  will  of  God,  who  in  his  own  good  time  would 
shorten  the  evil  days.  But  the  manipulation  of  the  sacri- 
ficial system  as  a  means  of  plundering  the  pious  was  a 
sin  of  Israel  itself,  against  which  protest  and  force  were 
justified.  What  the  heathen  and  the  wicked  do  is  their 
concern  and  God's,  but  the  sins  of  Israel  are  Israel's 
own;  against  them  the  righteous  in  Israel  may  execute 
judgement. 

It  would  be  an  affectation  to  suggest  that  this  subject 
does  not  raise  questions  of  the  greatest  practical  impor- 
tance for  the  present  age;  no  one  is  justified  in  evading 
the  issues  presented.  The  teaching  of  Jesus  represents 
a  non-resistant  attitude  which  has  come  to  be  described 
as  "pacifist,"  and  the  world  has  just  passed  through  a 
crisis  which  has  proved  that  "pacifism"  and  "non-resist- 
ance" are  impossible  policies.  What  does  this  mean  for 
those  who  profess  and  call  themselves  Christians?  It 
cannot  mean  that  they  ought  to  adopt  a,  non-resistant  policy 
either  in  personal  or  in  national  affairs,  for  experience 
(which  has,  after  all,  some  merit)  seems  to  prove  that 
the  policy  of  not  resisting  evil  leads,  to  its  triumph  rather 


26  Early  Christianity  I 

than  its  defeat  But  this  fact  gives  no  justification  for 
explaining  away  or  watering  down  the  plain  and  intelli- 
gible teaching  of  Jesus.1  It  was  his  teaching;  it  may 
have  been  right  and  wise  for  his  immediate  hearers;  but 
it  is  not  wise  or  right  as  the  general  basis  of  conduct, 
whether  personal  or  national.  If  Jesus  intended  to  lay 
down  a  general  principle  of  conduct  we  have  to  admit 
that  he  was  wrong,  or  adopt  the  pacifist  position.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  context  to  suggest  that  he  thought  of  a 
limited  application  of  his  words,  nor  in  the  days  of  perse- 
cution which  followed  did  Christians  so  interpret  him. 
If,  therefore,  he  was  wrong  it  is  necessary  to  ask  how 
we  can  explain  the  error. 

The  answer  seems  to  lie  in  a  comparison  of  the  attitude 
adopted  by  the  Jews  of  the  first  century  on  the  one  hand, 
and  by  ourselves  on  the  other,  as  to  the  working  of  God 
in  the  world.  The  Jew  believed  not  merely  in  an  omnipo- 
tent God,  but  in  a  God  who  constantly  used  his  power 
quite  independently  of  the  action  of  men.  We,  on  the 
contrary,  believe  that  the  universe  is  so  constituted  that 
human  action  bears  a  fixed  relation  to  the  course  of  events. 
What  men  do  or  do  not  bears  a  definite  relation  to  the 
events  which  will  follow,  and  we  no  longer  look  for  God 
to  help  those  who  are  unwilling  to  help  themselves.  One 
of  the  means  which  we  possess  of  helping  ourselves  is  force, 
physical  force.  We  have  the  power  to  use  it  for  good  or 
for  evil.  It  is  as  culpable  not  to  use  force  when  occasion 
requires  as  it  is  to  use  it  when  occasion  does  not. 

This  is  tolerably  plain  to  us,  but  it  was  not  tolerably 
plain  to  the  Jew  of  the  first  century.  The  war  has  brought 
out  the  human  limitations  of  the  ethics  of  Jesus  by  the 
intellectual  horizon  of  his  own  time  as  clearly  as  the 
application  of  literary  criticism  to  the  Old  Testament 
brought  out  the  defects  of  his  knowledge  of  the  authorship 

aThe  situation  becomes  pathetically  impossible  when  men's  theo- 
logical conscience  is  shocked  by  the  suggestion  that  Jesus  was  wrong, 
and  their  political  conscience  by  the  claim  that  he  should  be  obeyed. 


I  Galilee  27 

of  the  Jewish  scriptures.  Just  as  it  was  wrong  and  futile 
to  pretend  that  when  he  said  "David  said"  and  quoted  a 
psalm,  he  did  not  mean  to  ascribe  it  to  David,  it  is  futile 
to  argue  that  when  he  said  "resist  not  evil"  and  "love 
your  enemies"  he  sanctioned  the  patriotic  pursuit  of  war. 


II 

JEKUSALEM 

FOB,  the  history  of  the  disciples  after  the  death  of 
Jesus  we  are  dependent  upon  a  single  source,  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which  can,  however,  be  con- 
trolled, and  to  some  extent  corrected,  by  the  gospels  and 
by  the  epistles  of  Paul. 

It  is  now  generally  recognised  that  if  any  one  wishes 
to  write  a  life  of  Christ  he  ought  to  base  his  work  not  on 
the  gospels  as  we  have  them  now,  but  rather  on  the  in- 
formation provided  by  the  critical  analysis  of  the  gospels 
as  to  their  sources.  These  sources,  or  at  least  the  two 
oldest  and  most  important,  have  become  well  known  as 
Mark  and  Q.  Every  one  nowaday  is  aware  that  behind 
Matthew  and  Luke  is  a  document  which  was  almost  or  en- 
tirely identical  with  our  Mark,  and  that  in  addition  to 
this  both  Matthew  and  Luke  used  another  source,  or  pos- 
sibly sources,  to  which  the  name  of  Q  is  given.  In  gen- 
eral, however,  there  is  a  tendency  among  those  who  have 
acquired  this  insight  into  the  composition  of  the  gospels 
from  lectures  or  from  little  books  rather  than  by  the  study 
of  a  synopsis  to  attach  altogether  too  rigid  an  importance 
to  these  results. 

Mark,  though  a  document  of  early  date  and  unsurpassed 
value,  is  the  Greek  edition  of  an  earlier  Aramaic  tradi- 
tion, probably,  though  not  certainly,  in  documentary  form 
before  it  was  translated.  It  would  be  a  miracle  if  it 
contained  nothing  due  to  the  Greek  circle  in  which  its  pres- 
ent form  was  produced. 

Q,  after  all,  is  the  name,  not  of  an  existing  document, 

28 


II  Jerusalem  29 

but  of  the  critical  judgement  that  there  is  a  documentary 
source  behind  material  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke 
but  absent  in  Mark.  This  critical  judgement  is  accepted 
by  theologians  as  well  as  critics;  but  theologians,  with  a 
distrust  of  criticism  not  wholly  unjustified,  frequently 
prefer  a  mechanical  to  a  rational  application  of  this  dis- 
covery, and  dignify  their  preference  by  calling  it  objective, 
though  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  a  process  should  be  re- 
garded as  objective,  in  any  valuable  sense  of  the  word, 
because  it  automatically  accepts  as  derived  from  Q  every- 
thing common  to  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  leaves  out  all 
the  rest.  It  is  merely  a  method  of  canonising  the  sub- 
jectivity of  Matthew  when  it  agrees  with  that  of  Luke, 
or  of  Luke  when  it  agrees  with  that  of  Matthew,  and 
damning  both  of  them  when  they  happen  to  disagree. 
Why  the  subjectivity  of  the  editors  of  the  gospels  becomes 
objective  when  it  is  accepted  by  modern  writers  is  a  little 
difficult  to  see. 

The  result  of  this  concentration  of  attention  on  the 
value  of  synoptic  criticism  for  the  life  of  Jesus  and  of 
the  neglect  of  the  editorial  subjectivity  of  the  evangelists 
has  been  a  general  tendency  to  overlook  the  value  of  the 
gospels  as  the  record  of  the  opinion  of  the  generation  which 
produced  them.  Yet  obviously  there  are  no  other  docu-' 
ments  which  tell  us  the  views  held  in  the  early  Church 
of  the  teaching  and  office  of  Christ.  On  this  subject  they 
give  even  more  information  than  Acts,  and  enable  us  to 
control  it  by  showing  the  gradual  development  of  thought 
and  language  in  the  Christian  community. 

Similarly,  for  a  slightly  later  period  and  for  a  different 
locality,  the  Pauline  epistles  give  us  glimpses  of  the 
process  of  development — a  process  by  no  means  always 
peaceable — of  which  the  results  are  recorded  in  the  second 
part  of  Acts. 

In  this  way  the  critical  use  of  the  gospels,  the  Acts,  and 
Pauline  epistles  enable  us  to  trace  the  general  outline  of 
the  early  stages  of  the  synthesis  between  primitive  Jewish 


30  Early  Christianity  II 

Christianity  and  the  spirit  of  GraecoOriental  mysteries. 
It  takes  us  in  succession  into  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  and 
Corinth,  not  because  these  were  the  only  churches  which 
grew  up  in  this  period,  but  because  it  is  in  the  main  their 
tradition  which  is  preserved  in  the  documents  at  our  dis- 
posal. 

What  was  the  course  of  events  immediately  after  the 
death  of  Jesus  ?  There  is  no  period  of  which  the  details 
are  more  obscure,  but  the  criticism  of  Mark  and  Acts 
enables  us  to  reconstruct  its  general  outline.  The  fortu- 
nate preservation  of  Mark  enables  us  to  correct  the  nar- 
rative of  Acts.  If  we  had  Acts  alone  we  should  have  no 
doubt  but  that  the  disciples  stayed  in  Jerusalem,  and  set- 
tled there  from  the  time  when  they  entered  it  with  Jesus 
on  the  first  Palm  Sunday  until  the  day  when  they  left  it 
to  preach  to  the  world  outside.  Mark,  however,  is  con- 
vincing proof  that  Acts  has  omitted  a  complete  incident. 
In  Mark  xiv.  28  Jesus  is  represented  as  saying,  "After 
I  am  risen  I  will  go  before  you  into  Galilee,"  and  in 
Mark  xvi.  7  the  young  man  at  the  tomb  says,  "Go  tell  his 
disciples  and  Peter  that  he  goes  before  you  into  Galilee, 
there  ye  shall  see  him."  The  sequence  of  events  clearly 
implied  is  that  the  disciples  after  the  death  of  Jesus  went 
back  to  Galilee,  where  they  saw  the  risen  Jesus.  Inspired 
by  this  vision,  they  returned  to  Jerusalem  to  wait  for  his 
return  in  triumph,  and  meanwhile  to  continue  the  work 
which  he  had  begun.  Unfortunately  the  end  of  Mark, 
which  undoubtedly  described  the  details,  has  disappeared, 
but  the  general  sequence  is  as  clear  as  anything  can  be 
which  is  not  definitely  narrated. 

The  general  tenor  of  the  narrative  in  Acts  makes  it 
plain  that  in  Jerusalem  they  settled  down  as  a  separate 
synagogue.  Any  ten  Jews  had  a  right  to  form  a  syna- 
gogue' of  their  own,  and  general  community  of  interests, 
joined  to  opinions  differing  from  those  of  others,  would 
be  the  natural  basis  of  its  organisation ;  but  it  is  sometimes 


II  Jerusalem  31 

hard  for  Christians,  who  have  come  to  think  of  identity  of 
opinion,  especially  on  points  beyond  the  reach  of  proof,  as 
the  basis  of  ecclesiastical  life,  to  understand  that  Pales- 
tinian Judaism  admitted  the  widest  possible  range  of 
thought,  and  that  the  Church  of  Israel  rested  not  on 
uniformity  of  thought,  but  on  obedience  to  the  Law. 
Naturally  there  was  in  point  of  fact  considerable  agree- 
ment in  opinion,  and  naturally  also  difference  of  opinion 
led  to  quarrels  and  hostility;  but  in  general  the  Church 
of  Israel  in  the  first  century  was  as  characteristically  based 
on  uniformity  of  conduct  as  the  Christian  Church  in  the 
fourth  and  following  centuries  was  based  on  uniformity 
of  opinion. 

On  three  points  this  synagogue  of  the  Nazarenes,  as 
the  disciples  were  called,  differed  from  other  Jews:  (1) 
They  held  the  opinion  that  they  were  inspired,  at  least 
at  intervals,  by  the  Spirit  of  God;  (2)  they  followed  a, 
special  kind  of  communistic  rule  which  they  probably 
regarded  as  fulfilling  the  teaching  of  Jesus;  (3)  they  held 
and  preached  distinctive  opinions  about  Jesus  himself. 

The  opinion  that  the  disciples  were  inspired  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  in  some  ways  the  keystone  of  Christian 
life.  It  formed  a  connecting  link  with  the  authority  of 
Jesus  himself ;  for,  whatever  the  later  generation  of  Chris- 
tians may  have  thought,  it  is  clear  from  Mark  that  Jesus 
in  his  public  preaching  never  claimed  the  authority  of 
any  special  office  or  function  such  as  that  associated  with 
the  word  "Messiah"  or  with  the  title  "Son  of  Man,"  even 
though  he  may  have  allowed  an  inner  ring  of  disciples  to 
believe  that  these  were  the  offices  to  which  he  was  entitled. 
Nor  during  his  lifetime  did  he  even  permit  his  followers 
in  their  preaching  to  ascribe  any  such  rank  to  him.  The 
authority  which  he  actually  claimed  for  his  words  and 
deeds  was  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God ;  and  those  who 
maintained  that  he  cast  out  demons  by  the  power  of  Satan 
were,  he  said,  guilty  of  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  is  probable  that  the  gospel  tradition  is  trustworthy 


32  Early  Christianity  II 

which  associates  his  baptism  at  the  hands  of  John  the 
Baptist  with  his  first  consciousness  of  this  inspiration. 

Jesus,  then,  had  claimed  for  himself,  openly  and  pub- 
licly, the  authority  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence that  any  of  his  disciples  had  claimed  this  for  them- 
selves during  his  lifetime,  but  after  his  death  it  seemed 
to  them  that  the  Spirit  which  had  filled  their  Master  had 
descended  on  them,  inspiring  their  words  and  guiding 
their  actions.1 

What  ought  to  be  our  verdict  on  this  claim  of  the  first 
Christians?  To  see  the  question  in  its  true  light  it  is 
necessary  to  distinguish  between  the  experience  of  the 
Christians  and  the  opinion  which  they  held  about  it. 
Their  opinion  was  that  they  had  been  taken  possession 
of  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  was  acting  through  them, 
so  that  their  words  and  deeds  had  the  authority  no  longer 
of  fallible  man  but  of  the  omnipotent  and  infallible  God. 
This  theory  was  a  heritage  from  a  distant  past  in  Israel 
when  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  had  been  regarded  as  the 
source  of  all  extraordinary  events,  good  or  evil.  Later, 
evil  events  had  no  longer  been  attributed  to  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord,  but  to  demons  or  unclean  spirits  who  peopled  the 
earth  and  took  possession  of  men  as  they  found  oppor- 
tunity. To  them  were  attributed  disease,  misfortune, 
and  especially  the  raving  of  madness,  while  healing  and 
prophecy  were  attributed  to  the  Divine  Spirit. 

In  modern  times  we  no  longer  attribute  disease,  mis- 
fortune, or  madness  to  devils,  not  because  these  phenom- 
ena have  ceased,  but  because  we  have  a  different  theory 
of  their  origin,  which,  on  the  whole,  produces  more  satis- 
factory therapeutic  results  than  the  theory  of  possession. 
Similarly  the  phenomena  of  prophecy,  which  the  Jews 
ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  remain.  There  has.  never 

*I  have  discussed  the  story  of  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost 
in  the  Ewli&r  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  pp.  241  ff.,  and  have  added  some 
critical  remarks  on  the  various  forms  of  the  tradition  in  the  Pro- 
legomena  to  Acts,  i.  322  f. 


II  Jerusalem  33 

been  a  generation  lacking  in  men  who  believe  that  their 
action  and  speech  are  being  governed  by  a  compelling 
force,  separate  from  the  ordinary  process  of  volition. 
Those  who  have  this  experience  seem  to  themselves  to  be, 
as  it  were,  the  spectators  of  their  own  deeds,  or  to  be 
listening  to  their  own  utterances.  Under  its  influence 
individuals,  groups  of  men,  or  even  nations,  are  carried 
away  by  inexplicable  waves  of  passion  or  enthusiasm 
which,  once  aroused,  cannot  be  resisted  till  their  force  ia 
spent.  This  consciousness  has  been  felt  in  varying  degree 
in  every  generation,  and  the  progress  of  humanity  can 
never  be  explained  unless  it  be  taken  into  account.  Some- 
times, in  the  inevitable  reaction  after  the  psychic  stress  of 
such  experiences,  men  have  resented,  doubted,  or  denied 
the  validity  of  their  own  consciousness;  sometimes  they 
have  regarded  it  as  possessing  a  value  exceeding  all  else 
in  life.  Usually  those  who  have  it  attract  the  hostility 
of  their  contemporaries,  scarcely  tempered  by  the  alle- 
giance of  a  few  followers,  and  their  names  are  forgotten  in 
a  few  years,  but  sometimes  the  verdict  of  contemporary 
hatred  is  reversed  by  posterity,  which  endeavours  to  com- 
pensate by  legendary  honours  for  the  contempt  and  con- 
tumely of  life. 

The  problem  presented  by  this  experience  is  really 
twofold.  It  calls  for  a  judgement  as  to  its  origin  and  for 
a  judgement  as  to  its  value,  and  on  neither  point  has 
there  as  yet  been  sufficiently  clear  discussion. 

Does  the  experience  of  controlling  force  which  the 
prophet  feels  really  come  from  some  external  influence, 
or  is  it  merely  his  consciousness  of  ordinarily  unknown 
depths  in  his  own  nature  ?  It  is  obvious  that  a  theory  of 
prophecy  could  be  made  on  lines  rendered  familiar  by 
psychologists,  by  suggesting  that  what  happens  in  a  pro- 
phetic experience  is  the  sudden  "coming  up"  of  what  is 
ordinarily  "subliminal."  It  is,  however,  important  to 
remember  that  this  is  merely  a  modern  hypothesis,  just  as 
the  Jewish  view  of  inspiration  was  an  ancient  one.  But  it 


34  Early  Christianity  n 

is  impossible  in  a  rational  theology  to  combine  fragments 
of  two  wholly  different  explanations  of  life  and  of  the 
universe.  "The  Spirit"  was  an  admirably  intelligible 
phrase  in  the  Jewish  or  early  Christian  view  of  the  uni- 
verse; it  does  not  fit  in  well  with  the  modern  view  of  the 
universe.  Similarly  the  theory  of  subliminal  action  fits 
very  well  into  the  modern  view,  but  not  into  that  of  tradi- 
tional Christian  theology.  Preachers  seem  to  make  a  seri- 
ous mistake  when  they  try  to  combine  the  language  of  two 
rival  hypotheses  to  explain  the  same  human  experience. 

The  judgement  of  value  which  ought  to  be  passed  on 
the  prophets  is  no  clearer  than  the  judgement  of  origin. 
The  early  Church  knew  perfectly  well  that  there  were  true 
prophets  and  false  prophets,1  and  so  did  the  Jews,  but 
in  the  end  the  only  way  of  distinguishing  them  was  to  say 
that  a  true  prophet  was  a  prophet  who  was  right,  and  a 
false  prophet  was  a  prophet  who  was  wrong.  Nor  can 
we  arrive  at  any  different  judgement.  The  truth  is, — 
and  unfortunately  the  modern  world  is  sometimes  in  dan- 
ger of  forgetting  it, — that  the  difference  between  right 
and  wrong,  fact  and  fancy,  possibility  and  impossibility, 
is  inherent  in  the  nature  of  things  and  incapable  of  modi- 
fication by  human  beings,  prophets  or  otherwise.  It  can- 
not be  changed  by  the  glowing  utterances  of  poets,  proph- 
ets, or  preachers,  or  by  the  unanimous  votes  of  peoples. 
All  that  man  can  do  is  to  discover  it  and  obey  it  with 
humility.  The  mere  fact  of  discovery  arouses  in  some 
men  an  emotion  which  for  the  moment  seems  to  change 
their  being,  but  their  emotion  does  not  change  or  increase 
the  truth,  and  it  may  be  questioned  whether  in  some  cases 
it  has  not  prevented  them  from  seeing  rightly  the  value 
of  what  they  have  found.  For  the  same  deep  emotion  is 
sometimes  caused  by  error,  and  there  are  few  mistakes 

1 1  have  discussed  the  history  of  early  Christian  attempts  to  dis- 
tinguish false  from  true  prophets  in  "De  strijd  tusschen  het  oudste 
Christendom  en  de  bedriegers"  in  the  Theologisoh  Tijdsohrift,  xlii. 
395-411. 


II  Jerusalem  35 

more  deadly  than  to  judge  the  truth  of  what  a  man  says, 
or  the  value  of  what  he  does,  by  the  emotion  which  he 
feels  himself — however  sincerely — or  arouses  in  others — 
however  vehemently. 

The  way  of  life  which  the  first  Christians  adopted  was 
especially  marked  by  an  attempt  to  organise  themselves 
on  communistic  principles.  The  Christians  shared  all 
things;  those  who  had  property  realised  it,  and  pooled 
the  proceeds  in  a  common  fund,  which  was  distributed  to 
individual  members  as  need  arose.  It  is  impossible  not 
to  recognise  in  this  action  consistent  and  literal  obedience 
to  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  The  disciples  had  followed 
Jesus  to  the  end  of  his  journey  in  Jerusalem;  they  were 
waiting  for  his  manifestation  in  glory,  and  sold  all  that 
they  had  and  gave  to  the  poor.  But  in  terms  of  political 
economy  the  Church  was  realising  the  capital  of  its  mem- 
bers and  living  on  the  division  of  the  proceeds.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  under  these  circumstances  for  the  moment 
none  was  in  need  among  them,  and  that  they  shared  their 
food  in  gladness  of  heart,  for  nothing  so  immediately  re- 
lieves necessity  or  creates  gladness  of  heart  as  living  on 
capital,  which  would  be  indeed  an  ideal  system  of  economy 
if  society  were  coming  to  an  end,  or  capital  were  not.  It 
is  probable  that  the  Church  thought  that  society  would 
soon  end,  but  it  proved  to  be  wrong,  and  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  the  same  book,  which  in  its  early  chapters  relates 
the  remarkable  lack  of  poverty  among  the  Christians,  has 
in  the  end  to  describe  the  generous  help  sent  by  the  Gen- 
tile churches  to  the  poor  brethren. 

We  may,  however,  surmise  that  the  breakdown  of  this 
communistic  experiment  was  accompanied  by  other  diffi- 
culties in  the  Church.  It  appears  that  by  this  time  Chris- 
tianity had  attracted  the  favourable  attention  of  a  number 
of  Jews  who  belonged  at  least  by  origin  to  the  Diaspora, 
and  this  introduced  a  new  element,  destined  in  the  end  to 
become  dominant  and  much  more  objectionable  than  the 
original  disciples  to  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem,  "We  know 


36  Early  Christianity  II 

from  other  sources  that  among  the  Hellenistic  Jews  was 
a  tendency  to  liberalism,  or  Hellenism.  This  touched 
the  Jews  where  they  were  most  sensitive,  for  it  affected 
not  opinion  but  conduct,  and  seemed  to  threaten  the  de- 
struction of  the  Jewish  Law.  They  were  apparently  will- 
ing to  tolerate  Peter  and  the  rest,  so  long  as  they  confined 
themselves  to  holding  peculiar  opinions  about  the  Messiah, 
and  remained  perfectly  orthodox  in  their  fulfilment  of 
all  the  requirements  of  the  Law.  But  when  the  synagogue 
of  the  Nazarenes  took  to  themselves  Hellenists  the  situa- 
tion became  intolerable:  a  severe  persecution  arose, 
Stephen  was  killed,  and  the  rest  of  the  Hellenistic  party 
were  driven  out  of  Jerusalem,  though  the  original  disciples 
remained,  for  the  time  at  least,  in  comparative  peace. 
The  Hellenists  scattered  throughout  the  Gentile  neigh- 
bourhood of  Palestine,  and  their  future  history  will  have 
to  be  considered  later. 

The  opinion  which  the  disciples  held  of  Jesus  now  be- 
came part  of  their  preaching  in  a  manner  which  had  not 
been  the  case  during  his  lifetime.  To  distinguish  its 
nature  and  development  requires  a  somewhat  critical  inves- 
tigation of  the  meaning  and  history  of  the  titles  first  used 
in  speaking  of  Jesus.  The  chief  of  these  are  Messiah, 
Son  of  Man,  Son  of  God,  and  Servant.  That  which  in 
the  end  was  the  most  important  of  all — Lord — was  prob- 
ably not  used  until  a  little  later. 

Messiah  is  really  an  adjective  which,  translated  liter- 
ally, means  "anointed,"  or  in  Greek  XpcffTO£?  but  whereas 
to  say  that  a  man  was  anointed  has  no  more  meaning  in 
Greek  than  it  has  in  English,  it  had  in  Hebrew  the  clear 
and  universally  understood  meaning  of  "consecrated"  or 
"appointed  by  God."  It  was  applied  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment to  the  high-priest,  and  it  is  habitually  used  in  this 
sense  in  the  Mishna.  It  was  also  used  of  Saul,  of  David, 
and  of  some  of  the  other  kings,  but  always  with  some  defin- 
ing phrase  attached  to  it,  generally  speaking  "the  anointed 
of  Jehovah."  Without  definition  it  is  not  found  until 


II  Jerusalem  37 

the  Christian  period.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
at  the  beginning  of  the  first  century  it  was  used  exclu- 
sively to  describe  the  hope  of  the  Jews  that  a  prince  of 
the  house  of  David  would  restore  their  fallen  fortunes, 
though  in  the  later  Jewish  literature  it  was  used  in  this 
way.1 

Thus  if  we  try  to  construct  the  impression  which  the 
early  Christians  made  on  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem  by  claim- 
ing that  Jesus  was  anointed  by  God,  we  are  obliged  to 
say  that  the  phrase  itself  only  implied  his  divine  appoint- 
ment; it  did  not  by  itself  indicate  definitely  the  function 
to  which  he  was  appointed.  But  the  way  in  which  it  was 
used  must  have  suggested  two  special  functions — that  of 
the  Davidic  prince  alluded  to  above,  and  that  of  the  super- 
natural representative  of  God  who  would  judge  the  world 
at  the  last  day. 

It  is  quite  clear  that  the  writer  of  Luke  and  Acts,  and 
the  editor  of  Matthew,  identified  Jesus  with  the  expected 
Son  of  David,  but  there  is  room  for  doubt  whether  this 
fully  represents  the  thought  of  the  first  disciples.  There 
is  very  little  in  Mark  which  identifies  Jesus  with  the  Son 
of  David.  In  the  preaching  of  Jesus  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  so  far  as  it  was  not  the  divine  sovereignty,  was  the 
Age  to  Come  much  more  than  the  restored  monarchy.  It 
is  true  that  the  people  of  Jerusalem  seem  to  have  been 
looking  forward  to  a  Davidic  king,  as  may  be  seen  from 
the  cries  of  the  multitude  at  the  entry  of  Jesus  into 
Jerusalem.  It  is  also  true  that  Bartimaeus  greeted  Jesus 
as  Son  of  David;  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  recorded 
words  of  Jesus  to  show  that  he  accepted  this  view.  It 
seems,  therefore,  probable  that  just  as  the  people  were 
thinking  of  the  splendours  of  a  restored  monarchy,  while 
Jesus  was  speaking  of  the  reign  of  God  in  the  Age  to 
Come,  so  they  were  looking  for  a  Davidic  Messiah,  and 

*The  history  of  the  phrase  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  Jewish 
literature  is  discussed  by  G.  F.  Moore  in  the  Prolegomena  to  Acts, 
pp.  346  ft. 


38  Early  Christianity  11 

explained  Jesus'  strange  and  overmastering  personality  in 
accordance  with  their  own  wishes  rather  than  with  his 
words.  It  is  not  the  only  point  at  which  the  Church  fol- 
lowed the  leading  of  the  people  rather  than  the  teaching 
of  Jesus. 

The  figure  of  the  Son  of  Man  destined  to  be  God's  rep- 
resentative at  the  day  of  judgement  which  will  divide  this 
age  from  the  Age  to  Come  is  prominent  in  the  undoubted 
teaching  of  Jesus,  but  forms  one  of  the  most  difficult 
problems  in  New  Testament  criticism.  There  seems  but 
little  doubt  that  "Son  of  Man,"  which  in  Greek  is  an 
unintelligible  phrase  rather  than  a  title,  was  quite  as 
obscure  to  the  generation  of  Greek  Christians  which  pro- 
duced the  present  gospels  as  it  is  to  ourselves.  It  was  to 
them  merely  the  strange  self-designation  of  Jesus.  Prob- 
ably the  editors  of  the  gospels  believed  that  Jesus  used  this 
phrase  continually,  and  introduced  it  into  their  redactions 
of  early  sources  without  stopping  too  narrowly  to  inquire 
either  whether  it  had  this  meaning  in  the  passage  in 
question,  or  whether  the  way  in  which  they  were  using  it 
was  consistent  with  the  connotation  of  the  phrase.  The 
result  is  that  both  in  Mark  and  in  Q  there  are  passages 
in  which  "Son  of  Man"  represents  an  Aramaic  phrase 
which  might  be  translated  literally  in  this  way,  but  would 
be  idiomatically  rendered  "man."  For  instance,  it  is  tol- 
erably certain  that  in  the  passage  in  which  Jesus  speaks 
of  the  Sabbath  and  says,  "The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man 
and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath,"  he  really  continued,  "so 
that  man  is  lord  also  of  the  Sabbath,"  but  in  unidiomatic 
translation  the  word  meaning  "man"  was  rendered  "Son 
of  Man"  and  interpreted  as  referring  to  Jesus  himself. 
The  reason  for  saying  that  this  is  tolerably  certain  is  that 
the  only  alternative  is  that  "Son  of  Man"  really  meant 
"Jesus,"  and  was  intended  as  a  reference  to  the  "Son  of 
Man"  who  plays  a  part  in  some  of  the  apocalypses,  and 
it  seems  inconceivable  that  Jesus,  who  forbade  his  disciples 


II  Jerusalem  39 

to  tell  the  public  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  could  so  openly 
have  claimed  this  dignity. 

Discussion  of  the  phrase  "Son  of  Man"  has  been  going 
on  for  many  years,  and  has  made  it  increasingly  clear  that, 
apart  from  the  unidiomatic  translations  referred  to  above, 
apocalyptic  usage  is  the  most  important  factor  in  the  prob- 
lem. An  obscure  but  impressive  passage  in  Daniel  was 
taken  up  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  which  describes  in  the 
Similitudes  the  vision  of  a  Man — or  in  Aramaic  phrase- 
ology a  "Son  of  Man7' — in  heaven,  who  was  "anointed," 
that  is  to  say  consecrated  by  God,  to  act  as  the  judge  at 
the  end  of  the  age.  Jesus  appears  to  have  used  this  expres- 
sion, and  to  have  anticipated  the  speedy  coming  in  judge- 
ment of  this  Man  on  the  clouds  of  heaven.  This  much 
may  be  regarded  as  agreed  upon  by  all  investigators.  But 
the  curious  and  striking  thing  is  that  in  none  of  the 
Marcan  passages  in  which  it  is  used  in  this  sense  does  it 
unambiguously  refer  to  Jesus  himself.  !N"o  doubt  the 
disciples  were  convinced  that  it  did,  but  it  is  therefore 
all  the  more  interesting  and  important  that  his  actual 
words  as  reported  by  them  do  not  necessarily  confirm  their 
opinion.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  series  of  passages 
peculiar  to  Mark  (that  is  to  say,  none  of  them  is  found 
in  Q)  in  which  "Son  of  Man'7  does  not  refer  to  any  com- 
ing in  judgement,  but  to  the  approaching  passion,  death, 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus.  If  he  really  uttered  these 
words,  beyond  doubt  he  meant  himself  by  the  Son  of  Man, 
and  was  introducing  an  entirely  unparalleled  and  new 
element  into  the  delineation  of  this  supernatural  figure. 
But  did  he  use  these  words  ?  In  the  description  of  the 
passion,  death,  and  resurrection  it  is  generally  recognised 
that  the  exactness  of  the  prediction  probably  owes  some- 
thing to  the  disciples'  later  knowledge  of  the  actual  course 
of  events.  Their  conduct  at  the  arrest  of  Jesus,  and  the 
entire  absence  of  any  sign  of  expectation  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, render  it  very  improbable  that  Jesus  spoke  with  the 


40  Early  Christianity  II 

definiteness  ascribed  to  him.  In  this  case,  therefore,  there 
is  decided  reason  for  thinking  that  the  phrase  "Son  of 
Man"  may  itself  belong  to  the  embellishment  rather  than 
to  the  body  of  tradition. 

Thus  the  passages  in  which  Jesus  certainly  uses  "Son 
of  Man"  are  ambiguous — they  need  not  necessarily  refer 
to  him,  and  the  passages  which  unambiguously  refer  to 
him  were  not  certainly  spoken  by  him.  For  this  reason 
it  is  somewhat  more  probable  than  not  that  the  identifica- 
tion of  Jesus  with  the  Son  of  Man  was  not  made  by  Jesus 
himself.  But  it  certainly  embodies  the  earliest  opinion 
of  the  disciples  concerning  him,  and  it  is  in  all  probability 
to  this  apocalyptic  figure  of  the  Man  in  heaven,  predes- 
tined to  judge  the  world  and  anointed  by  God  for  that 
purpose,  that  the  Marcan  tradition  (we  cannot  speak  with 
certainty  of  Q)  referred  when  it  described  Jesus  as 
"anointed." 

A  little  later  the  circles  represented  by  Matthew  and 
Luke  added  to  this  the  more  popular  expectation  of  the 
restored  monarchy  of  the  house  of  David ;  but  the  original 
stamp  was  never  lost,  and  the  functions  of  the  Christian 
Messiah,  as  apart  from  his  name,  were  always  those  of 
the  Man  of  Enoch,  much  more  than  those  of  the  Davidic 
king  of  the  Psalms  of  Solomon. 

Finally,  the  concept  of  the  Man  who  was  to  judge  the 
world  was  extensively  modified  by  the  actual  course  of  the 
passion,  death,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  the  Lukan 
writings,  though  probably  not  Mark,  Q,  or  even  Matthew, 
facilitated  or  confirmed  this  process  by  connecting  the 
story  of  Jesus  with  the  picture  given  in  the  fifty-third 
chapter  of  Isaiah  of  the  suffering  of  the  righteous  Servant 
of  the  Lord. 

The  Servant  is  a  comparatively  common  title  in  the 
Old  Testament  for  those  who  faithfully  carried  out  the 
will  of  God ;  it  is  used  of  Abraham,  David,  and  Job  among 
the  sons  of  Israel,  of  Cyrus  among  the  heathen,  of  Israel 
in  general,  and  of  the  righteous  portion  of  Israel  in  par- 


II  Jerusalem  41 

ticular.  In  some  parts,  but  not  in  all,  the  suffering  of  the 
Servant,  whoever  he  may  be,  is  emphasised;  but  there  is 
no  trace  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  in  the  later  Jewish  writ- 
ings, that  these  descriptions  were  regarded  as  predictive  of 
the  future.  It  was  inevitable  that  the  resemblance  of  the 
death  of  Jesus  to  Isaiah  liii.  should  sooner  or  later  strike 
Christian  readers  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  it  does  not 
appear  to  have  done  so  immediately,  and  it  is  doubtful 
whether  Isaiah  liii.  was  the  first  "suffering"  passage  in 
the  Old  Testament  to  be  ascribed  to  him.  It  is  more  prob- 
able that  the  use  of  the  twenty-second  Psalm  was  earlier. 

One  further  title  of  Jesus  in  the  early  Christian  litera- 
ture remains  to  be  discussed.  He  is  referred  to  as  Son 
of  God.  What  would  this  phrase  mean  in  Jewish  ears? 
In  general  the  Jews  regarded  God  as  unique.  The  idea 
of  a  Son  of  God  in  any  physical  sense,  such  as  seemed 
natural  enough  to  the  heathen  world,  would  have  been 
unthinkable  to  them,  but  they  believed  that  God  himself 
had  used  the  phrase  metaphorically  to  describe  the  relation 
between  him  and  his  chosen  people.  It  was  a  moral  son- 
ship,  not  a  physical  one  in  the  heathen  sense,  or  a  meta- 
physical one  in  the  later  Christian  sense. 

In  the  later  literature  the  phrase  developed  on  two 
separate  lines.  There  was  the  tendency,  exemplified  in 
some  of  the  Psalms,  and  still  more  in  the  Psalms  of  Solo- 
mon, to  use  the  phrase  "Son  of  God"  to  describe  the 
Davidic  king,  but  it  was  also  used  in  quite  a  different  sense 
in  the  Wisdom  Literature  as  the  description  of  the  right- 
eous man,  and  especially  of  the  righteous  man  who 
suffered. 

In  Christian  literature  it  seems  tolerably  clear  that  the 
history  of  the  phrase  passed  through  several  stages.  The 
latest,  though  in  the  end  the  most  important  for  the  devel- 
opment of  doctrine,  is  that  of  metaphysical  sonship,  which 
followed  upon  the  equation  of  "Son  of  God"  with  "Logos." 
Somewhat  earlier  than  this,  in  the  early  chapters  of  Luke, 
and  probably  of  Matthew,  is  an  idea  of  sonship  which 


42  Early  Christianity  II 

approximates  to  the  physical  notion  of  the  heathen  world. 
Earlier  still  it  was  probably  used  as  a  synonym  for  the 
Davidic  Messiah.  The  question  is  whether  this  is  its 
meaning  in  the  earliest  passage  of  all, — the  account  given 
in  the  first  chapter  of  Mark  of  the  voice  from  heaven  at 
the  baptism  which  said,  "Thou  art  my  beloved  Son  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased."  It  is  generally  held  that  this 
is  a  quotation  from  the  second  Psalm,1  and  therefore  iden- 
tifies Jesus  with  the  Davidic  Messiah.  But  is  it  quite  so 
certain  that  it  is  a  quotation  from  anything  ?  The  words 
of  the  Psalm  are  really  quite  different,  "Thou  art  my 
Son"  instead  of  "Beloved  Son,"  and  "This  day  have  I 
begotten  thee"  instead  of  "in  whom  I  am  well  pleased." 
Why  should  we  suppose  either  that  the  voice  from  heaven 
was  restricted  to  quoting  scripture,  or  that  it  did  so  with 
quite  remarkable  inaccuracy?  If,  however,  the  idea  be 
abandoned  that  the  voice  from  heaven  necessarily  refers 
to  the  second  Psalm,  it  becomes  an  open  question  whether 
Jesus  himself  regarded  his  divine  sonship  as  the  Davidic 
messiahship,  or  as  that  divine  sonship  which  the  Book  of 
Wisdom  ascribes  to  the  righteous.  The  problem  thus 
raised  can  never  be  settled,  for  the  evidence  is  insufficient ; 
but  neither  can  it  be  dismissed,  for  it  is  implicit  in  the 
gospel  itself. 

The  whole  importance  of  this  series  of  problems  in  the 
history  of  early  Christology  is  often  strangely  mistaken. 
It  seems  to  many  as  though  the  line  of  thought  suggested 
above,  which  reduces  to  a  vanishing  point  the  amount  of 
Christology  traceable,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word, 
to  Jesus  himself,  is  in  some  way  a  grave  loss  to  Chris- 
tianity. No  doubt  it  is  a  departure  from  orthodoxy. 
But  if  the  history  of  religion  has  any  clear  lesson,  it  is 
that  a  nearer  approach  to  truth  is  always  a  departure 
from  orthodoxy.  Moreover,  the  alternative  to  the  view 

1 W.  C.  Allen  is  a  noteworthy  exception.  See  his  note  on  Matt.  iii. 
17  in  the  International  Critical  Commentary.  See  further  Pro- 
legomena to  Aot»,  pp.  397  ff. 


II  Jerusalem  43 

stated  above  is  to  hold  that  Jesus  did  regard  himself  as 
either  one  or  both  of  the  two  Jewish  figures,  the  Davidic 
Messiah  and  the  Son  of  Man  described  in  Enoch.  Both 
of  these  are  part  of  a  general  view  of  the  universe,  and 
especially  of  a  prognostication  of  the  future,  wholly  dif- 
ferent from  our  own,  and  quite  incredible  to  modern 
minds.  How  do  we  endanger  the  future  of  Christianity 
by  doubting  that  Jesus  identified  himself  with  figures 
central  in  incredible  and  now  almost  universally  aban- 
doned forms  of  thought  ? 


m 

AOTIOCH 

ACCORDING  to  Acts  the  result  of  the  persecution 
of  Stephen  was  the  spread  of  Christianity  outside 
Palestine.     As  the  narrative  stands  it  seems  to 
imply  that  before  this  time  there  had  been  no  Christian 
propaganda  outside  Jerusalem.     But  significant  details 
show  that  this  impression  is  wrong  and  merely  due  to 
the  fact  that  the  writer  gives  no  account  of  the  earlier 
stages. 

After  the  death  of  Stephen  Paul  appears  to  have  con- 
tinued his  persecuting  zeal,  and  obtained  authority  to  go 
to  Damascus  and  prosecute  the  Christians  resident  there. 
Obviously,  then,  the  Christian  movement  had  already 
spread  to  Damascus,  but  there  is  no  hint  in  Acts  as  to 
how  it  did  so.  That  in  so  doing  it  had  advanced  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  Synagogue  is  not  clear,  but  Damascus 
was  essentially  a  Gentile  city,  and  the  following  considera- 
tions suggest  that  it  had  done  so.  We  know  that  the 
Jews  of  the  Diaspora  at  this  period  were  filled  with  a 
proselytising  zeal  of  which  the  fact  is  more  certain  than 
the  details.  It  is  also  tolerably  plain  from  Philo  that 
there  was  a  strong  tendency  to  Hellenise  and  go  further 
than  orthodox  Jews  were  willing  to  tolerate.  It  is  also 
certain  that  the  outcry  against  the  Christians  in  Jeru- 
salem which  led  to  the  death  of  Stephen  did  not  start 
among  the  native  Jews  but  among  the  Hellenists — those 
who  belonged  to  the  synagogues  of  the  freedmen  and  of 
the  Cyrenaeans,  Alexandrians,  Cilicians,  and  Asians,  who 

44 


Ill  Antioch  45 

had  synagogues  in  Jerusalem.1  In  addition  to  this, 
though  Acts  suggests  that  the  origin  of  the  Seven  was  the 
necessity  of  administering  the  funds  of  the  community, 
it  is  clear  that  in  point  of  fact  it  was  their  preaching 
which  made  them  prominent.  Finally,  it  is  clear  from 
Acts  that  Philip  began  to  preach  to  the  Gentiles  as  soon 
as  he  left  Jerusalem,  and  that  some  of  the  Cypriots  and 
Cyrenaeans  did  the  same. 

There  is  thus  considerable  though  not  overwhelming 
evidence  that  preaching  to  the  Gentiles  began  somewhat 
sooner  than  is  popularly  supposed,  and  that  before  the 
conversion  of  Paul  near  Damascus  by  the  vision  of  the 
risen  Lord,  or  before  the  conversion  of  Peter  by  the  epi- 
sode of  Cornelius,  there  was  already  a  Christian  mission 
to  the  Gentiles.  The  importance  of  this  is  that  it  enables 
us  to  see  the  history  of  the  early  Church  in  a  somewhat 
different  perspective.  It  shows  that  Paul  was  not  the 
first,  though  he  was  undoubtedly  the  greatest,  of  the  Chris- 
tians who  preached  to  the  Gentiles.  He  was  a  part  of 
Hellenistic  Christianity,  and  probably,  as  will  be  seen 
later,  not  the  most  extreme  of  its  adherents. 

We  have,  then,  to  imagine  the  gradual  rise  of  a  Hellen- 
ising  movement  among  the  Christians,  of  which  the  Seven 
were  probably  the  original  leaders  in  Jerusalem,  while  un- 
known disciples,  of  whom  we  only  know  that  they  were 
successful  in  Damascus,  were  carrying  it  on  in  other  places. 
The  Twelve  appear  to  have  regarded  the  movement  with 
doubt  and  suspicion,  and  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem  always 
distinguished  between  the  original  disciples  and  the  Hel- 
lenists. Gradually,  however,  the  opposition  of  the  Twelve 
and  their  followers  crumbled  away.  The  final  defection, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  Judaism,  was  that  of  Peter. 
To  judge  from  Acts  he  had  undertaken  a  mission  in 
Palestine,  following  up  the  work  of  Philip  and  probably 

*It  is  probable  that  Paul  was  at  this  time  settled  in  Damascus 
rather  than  Jerusalem.  If  so,  which  synagogue  in  Jerusalem  did 
he  frequent?  That  of  the  Cilicians  as  a  native  of  Tarsus? 


46  Early  Christianity  III 

of  others,  but  the  story  brings  to  notice  one  of  the  char- 
acteristic weaknesses  of  Acts  as  history.  It  always  omits 
or  minimises  differences  of  opinion  and  quarrels  among 
Christians.  We  know  this  by  comparing  the  Epistles 
with  the  Acts.  It  is  therefore  perfectly  legitimate  to 
suppose  that  there  may  well  have  been  far  more  friction 
at  first  between  the  Hellenist  missionaries  and  the  Twelve 
than  Acts  suggests.  But  in  the  end  Peter  had  a  vision  at 
Joppa  which  convinced  him  that  he  was  wrong,  and  he 
accepted  Cornelius  as  a  brother  Christian.  Acts  would 
have  us  understand  that  the  whole  Church  at  Jerusalem 
accepted  Peter's  position,  but  in  view  of  the  Judaistio 
controversy,  which  continued  to  rage  much  later  than  this 
time,  it  is  certain  that  this  is  not  in  accordance  with  fact. 
It  is  significant  that  soon  after  this  Peter  was  put  in 
prison,  and  on  his  escape  from  prison  left  Jerusalem.1 

From  this  time  on,  if  not  before,  the  undoubted  head 
of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem  was  James,  the  brother  of  the 
Lord.  What  was  his  attitude  towards  the  Hellenising 
Christians  ?  Acts  would  have  us  understand  that  he  was 
always  on  perfectly  good  terms  with  Peter,  and  later  on 
with  Paul.  But  that  is  hardly  the  impression  given  by 
the  Pauline  epistles,  which  very  clearly  distinguish  Peter 
from  James  and  his  emissaries.  Paul's  view  is  that  Peter 
was  in  principle  on  the  same  side  as  himself,  and  that 
he  therefore  had  no  right  to  yield  to  the  representatives  of 
James ;  but  he  never  suggests  that  James  and  he  were  on 
the  same  side.  Nor  had  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem  any  illu- 
sions on  the  subject;  when  Paul  appeared  in  the  temple 
he  was  promptly  arrested,  but  not  until  the  popular  mad- 
ness of  the  year  66  did  any  of  the  orthodox  Jews  think  of 
interfering  with  James,  the  head  of  the  Christians  in 
Jerusalem. 

Thus  Acts  plainly  has  understated  the  amount  of  con- 
troversy between  the  Hellenising  Christians  and  the  origi- 
1  Unless  this  atory  is  misplaced  and  ought  to  come  before  Acts  ix. 


Ill  'Antioch  47 

nal  community.  Failure  to  see  this  is  due  to  the  ulti- 
mately complete  triumph  of  the  Hellenistic  party,  who 
naturally  looked  on  what  was  really  the  conservative  posi- 
tion as  Judaising,  whereas  the  truth  was  that  they  them- 
selves were  Hellenising. 

According  to  Acts  the  most  successful  centre  of  Hel- 
lenistic Christianity  was  Antioch.  Here,  too,  it  is  pos- 
sible that  the  picture  presented  by  it  is  one-sided,  owing 
to  the  fact  that,  at  least  in  many  places,  Acts  reproduces 
the  tradition  of  Antioch.  Doubtless  there  were  other 
centres  equally  important.  Neither  Ephesus  nor  Rome 
seems  to  have  been  founded  by  missionaries  from  Antioch, 
though  Paul  and  the  other  Antiochean  missionaries  came 
into  their  history  at  an  early  date. 

The  controversy  between  the  school  of  James  and  the 
Hellenistic  Christians  appears  to  have  been  very  acute  in 
Antioch,  but  the  details  are  extremely  obscure.  Acts  rep- 
resents the  beginning  of  the  Church  at  Antioch  as  due 
to  Hellenistic  Christians  who  left  Jerusalem  after  the 
death  of  Stephen.  IsTor  is  there  any  reason  to  doubt  the 
correctness  of  this  tradition,  which  is  probably  that  of 
Antioch  itself.  A  little  later  Barnabas  came  down  from 
Jerusalem  to  Antioch.  Acts  does  not  state,  but  seems  to 
imply,  that  he  came  down,  as  Peter  had  come  to  Samaria, 
in  order  to  criticise  and  control  Hellenistic  enthusiasm. 
But,  like  Peter  at  Caesarea,  he  was  converted  by  the  Hel- 
lenists, and  stayed  to  help  their  mission.  He  went  fur- 
ther than  this :  hearing  apparently  of  the  success  of  Paul 
at  Tarsus  he  sent  for  him  and  co-opted  him  into  the  service 
of  the  Church  at  Antioch,  It  is  worth  noting  in  passing 
that  the  complete  absence  of  any  details  as  to  Paul's  work 
in  Tarsus,  and  the  silence  concerning  his  movements  from 
the  time  he  left  Jerusalem  soon  after  his  conversion,  proves 
that  this  part  of  Acts  is  an  Antiochean  rather  than  a 
Pauline  tradition. 

Soon  after  this  more  missionaries  arrived  from  Jeru- 
salem. They  do  not  appear  to  have  been  active  propa- 


48  Early  Christianity  III 

gandists,  but  brought  with  them  a  sad  story  of  approach- 
ing destitution  in  the  famine  which  was  at  hand.  The 
Church  at  Antioch  rose  to  the  necessity  and  sent  Paul 
and  Barnabas  with  relief.1  Acts  tells  us  nothing  more 
of  what  happened,  but  that  soon  after  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
having  returned  to  Antioch,  started  on  the  "First  Mis- 
sionary Journey."  2  On  their  return,  however,  a  mission 
of  protest  against  their  methods  arrived  from  Jerusalem. 
Paul,  Barnabas,  and  some  others  went  up  to  Jerusalem; 
a  meeting  of  the  representatives  of  the  two  churches  was 
held,  and  an  amicable  agreement  which  was  in  the  main 
a  triumph  for  Antioch  was  arrived  at.3 

This  appears  to  be  Paul's  third  visit  to  Jerusalem  after 
his  conversion;  but  this  raises  difficulties,  and  has  led 
to  considerable  critical  investigation  and  not  a  little  con- 
troversy. It  had  always  been  supposed  that  this  visit  of 
Paul  to  Jerusalem  was  identical  with  that  described  in  the 
second  chapter  of  Galatians,  but  in  that  chapter  Paul, 
calling  God  to  witness  that  he  is  not  lying,  makes  a  state- 
ment which  loses  all  its  point  if  it  was  not  his  second  visit. 
Various  attempts  to  explain  this  difficulty  have  been  made. 
One  solution  of  the  problem  is  that  the  visit  to  Jerusalem 
described  in  Galatians  ii.  is  not  identical  with  that  of 
Acts  xv.,  but  is  an  episode  connected  with  the  visit  in  the 
time  of  the  famine  relief,  which  the  writer  of  Acts  had 
either  not  known  or  thought  it  unnecessary  to  recount.4 
According  to  this  theory  the  visit  described  in  Acts  xv. 
took  place  after  the  visit  in  Galatians  had  been  written. 
But  this  theory  does  not  answer  the  difficulty  that  the 
apostolic  decrees  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Epistles  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  that  it  is  incredible  that  they  could  have 
been  overlooked  by  Paul  if  the  account  in  Acts  xv.  were 

1Actaxi.  27  ff. 

» Acts  xii.  25-xiv.  28. 

•  Acts  xv. 

4  See  especially  C.  W.  Emmet,  The  Eschatological  Question  in  the 
Gospels  and  other  Studies,  pp.  191  ff.,  and  K.  Lake,  The  Earlier 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  pp.  274  ff. 


Ill  Antioch  49 

wholly  correct.  It  seems  better  to  accept  the  suggestion 
that  the  solution  of  the  problem  is  to  be  found  in  the 
source-criticism  of  Acts. 

The  source-criticism  of  Acts  has  passed  through  three 
more  or  less  spasmodic  stages.1  The  first  was  early  in  the 
nineteenth  century  when  a  number  of  scholars  endeav- 
oured to  analyse  the  book.  Their  efforts  were  not  very 
successful,  though  they  unearthed  a  great  many  interest- 
ing phenomena.  Later  on,  in  the  'nineties,  another  series 
of  efforts  were  made  with,  on  the  whole,  even  less  success 
than  before.  Finally,  in  our  own  time  there  have  been 
some  interesting  suggestions  by  Harnack,  Schwartz,  and 
Torrey.2 

The  last  named  has  shown  extremely  good  reason  for 
thinking  that  there  is  an  Aramaic  source  behind  the  first 
fifteen  chapters  of  Acts.8  He  is  less  convincing  when  he 
tries  to  prove  that  this  was  a  single  document,  and  that  it 
was  faithfully  translated  without  addition  or  change  by 
the  editor  of  Acts.  It  seems  more  probable  that  there  was 
more  than  one  Aramaic  source,  and  that  it  was  often 
changed  and  interpolated  by  the  editor. 

Harnack  skilfully  tries  to  distinguish  two  main  lines 
of  tradition,  that  of  Antioch  and  that  of  Jerusalem.  He 

1The  most  important  names  in  the  first  period  are  Konigsmann, 
Schleiermacher,  Gfrorer,  and  Schwanbeck,  especially  the  last;  in  the 
second  period  B.  Weiss,  Wendt,  Sorof,  Jungst,  J.  Weiss,  Spitta, 
Clemen,  Hilgenfeld.  In  general  the  work  of  this  group  is  inferior 
in  value  to  that  of  their  predecessors.  A  clear  and  invaluable  sum- 
mary of  both  is  given  by  W.  Heitmuller  in  the  Theologische  Rund- 
schau for  1899,  pp.  47  ff. 

a  Perhaps  Norden's  name  should  be  added,  but  interesting  and 
stimulating  though  his  book  Agnostos  Theos  be,  it  suffers  from  igno- 
rance of  early  Christianity,  and  has  little  permanent  value  for  the 
criticism  of  Acts. 

*A.  von  Harnack,  Untersuchungen  zu  den  Schriften  des  Lukas; 
E.  Schwartz,  "Zur  Chronologie  des  Paulus,"  in  the  Gottingische 
Nachrichten,  1907,  pp.  263  flf.;  C.  C.  Torrey,  "The  Composition  and 
Date  of  Acts,"  in  the  Harvard  Theological  Studies,  i.  The  most 
damaging  criticism  of  Torrey  is  that  of  F.  C.  Burkitt  in  the  Journal 
of  Theological  Studies,  Oct.  1919,  but  I  do  not  think  that  he 
answers  Torrey's  case. 


50  Early  Christianity  III 

also  thinks  the  Jerusalem  tradition  existed  in  two  forms, 
which  can  be  distinguished  as  doublets  in  Acts  i.-v.  He 
attaches  Acts  xv.  to  the  tradition  of  Antioch,  but  it  seems 
more  probable  that  it  belongs  to  the  Jerusalem  tradition. 
The  truth  may  be  as  follows:  soon  after  the  time  when 
Barnabas  had  gone  over  to  the  Hellenistic  party  another 
body  of  Christians  from  Jerusalem  came  to  Antioch.  In 
the  years  which  followed  there  grew  up  two  traditions  of 
what  happened  next.  The  tradition  at  Antioch  was  that 
the  Christians  from  Jerusalem  had  been  chiefly  concerned 
with  the  physical  necessities  of  their  Church,  though  they 
were  undoubtedly  men  possessed  of  a  prophetic  gift.  They 
had  so  worked  on  the  sympathy  of  Antioch  that  it  had 
accepted  the  needs  of  the  poor  saints  in  Jerusalem  as  a 
responsibility  laid  on  it  by  heaven.  This  tradition  is 
preserved  in  a  short  form  in  Acts  xi.,  and  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians  Paul  energetically  sustained  its  correct- 
ness, incidentally  mentioning  some  other  events  connected 
with  his  stay  at  Jerusalem,  the  perversion  of  which,  as  he 
maintained,  had  given  rise  to  the  tradition  of  Jerusalem. 
This  latter  tradition  the  editor  of  Acts  had  found  pre- 
served in  the  document  which  he  has  used  as  the  basis  of 
Acts  xv.,  and  if  any  one  will  read  Galatians  ii.  alongside 
of  Acts  xv.,  not  in  order  to  see  how  much  they  agree  or 
differ,  but  rather  to  note  how  far  they  might  be  different 
accounts  of  the  same  series  of  events,  he  will  see  that 
Paul's  chief  contention  is  that  he  only  saw  the  leaders  of 
the  community  at  Jerusalem  in  private,  and  that  they  at 
no  time  succeeded  in  imposing  any  regulations  on  him. 
The  vigour  of  his  protestations  seems  to  indicate  that  his 
opponents  had  maintained  that  the  meeting  was  an  official 
one,  and  that  it  had  imposed  regulations,  namely,  should 
the  theory  which  is  being  suggested  be  correct,  the  Apos- 
tolic Decrees. 

The  two  traditions  are  naturally  quite  contradictory; 
but  human  nature  is  so  constituted  that  it  is  not  impos- 
sible for  two  sets  of  people,  especially  after  some  lapse  of 


Ill  'Antiocfc  51 

time,  to  give  entirely  different  accounts  of  the  same  events 
and  to  do  so  in  perfectly  good  faith.  The  editor  of  Acts, 
however,  did  not  realise  that  the  two  traditions  referred 
to  the  same  event,  and  made  a  mistake  in  thinking  that 
the  meeting  which  he  found  described  in  the  Jerusalem 
source  came  after  and  not  before  the  first  missionary 
journey.  Ed.  Schwartz  goes  further.  He  points  out 
that  the  first  missionary  journey  follows  the  account  of 
the  meeting  in  Jerusalem  given  in  Acts  xi.,  and  that  the 
second  journey  follows  the  account  given  in  Acts  xv.  If 
there  was  really  only  one  meeting,  was  there  not  really 
only  one  journey,  which  the  editor  of  Acts,  or  his  sources, 
converted  into  two? 

However  this  may  be,  and  no  agreement  among  critics 
is  ever  likely  to  be  reached,  it  is  at  least  certain  that  there 
was  considerable  friction  between  Jerusalem  and  Antioch, 
and  that  Antioch  wholly  refused  to  accept  the  dictation 
of  Jerusalem.  On  the  contrary,  it  undertook  wide-reach- 
ing missions,  of  one  of  which  Paul  became  the  leader, 
founding  churches  in  Galatia,  Asia,  and  Achaea.  Of  his 
career  we  have  an  obviously  good  account,  so  far  as  the 
sequence  of  events  is  concerned,  in  the  second  part  of 
Acts,  and  some  interesting  sidelights  on  its  difficulties  and 
trials  in  the  Pauline  epistles. 

What  were  the  main  characteristics  of  the  preaching 
to  the  Gentiles  which  thus  found  a  centre  in  Antioch? 
Its  basis  was  the  intellectual  heritage  from  Jerusalem 
which  made  the  Christians  teach  that  the  God  of  the  Jews 
was  the  only  true  God,  and  that  Jesus  had  been  appointed 
by  him  as  the  Man  who  would  judge  the  world  at  the  end 
of  the  age.  This  represents  the  teaching  in  Marcan  tradi- 
tion as  to  the  Son  of  Man,  but  Paul  also  accepted  the  view 
that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  David,  though  he  seems  to  have 
eliminated  the  purely  national  character  of  the  expected 
restoration  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Jews  under  a  Davidic 
king. 

The  only  complete  evidence  as  to  the  fexact  form  of  the 


52  Early  Christianity  III 

expectation  which  played  a  part  in  the  teaching  of  Paul, 
and  presumably  in  that  of  the  Church  of  Antioch  as  a 
whole,  is  the  invaluable  description  given  in  the  Epistles  * 
of  the  sequence  of  events  to  which  Paul  looked  forward. 
According  to  this  he  expected  that  Jesus  would  come  on 
the  clouds  of  heaven;  Christians  who  had  died  would  be 
raised  up,  and  the  rest  would  be  changed,  so  that  they 
would  no  longer  consist  of  flesh  and  blood,  but  of  spirit. 
But,  just  as  in  4  Ezra,  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  is  limited ; 
a  time  will  come  when  he  will  deliver  up  his  dominion  to 
God.  Then  comes  "the  End/'  and  Paul  takes  the  picture 
no  further.  Is  it  too  much  to  suppose  that,  like  4  Ezra, 
he  thought  that  at  the  End  the  whole  of  the  present  order 
would  cease,  and  that  after  it  would  come  the  general 
resurrection  and  judgement,  to  which  he  frequently  al- 
ludes, followed  by  the  life  of  the  Age  to  Come?  In  any 
case  the  idea  of  the  limited  reign  of  the  Messiah,  and  the 
increased  emphasis  on  the  descent  of  Jesus  from  David, 
are  points  of  contact  with  4  Ezra,  and  thus  make  it  in- 
creasingly possible  that  Paul  thought  that  the  resurrection 
of  Christians  to  life  would  be  separate  from  the  final  resur- 
rection of  all  to  judgement. 

This  original  Christian  teaching  was  essentially  Jewish, 
but  much  of  the  phraseology  in  which  it  would  have  been 
expressed  by  Jews  must  have  been  unintelligible  to  Greek 
ears.  It  therefore  soon  either  disappeared  or  was  trans- 
formed. The  Kingdom  of  God,  for  instance,  is  as  rarely 
mentioned  in  the  Pauline  epistles  as  it  is  frequent  in  the 
earliest  part  of  the  gospels.  The  word  "Christ,"  trans- 
lating the  Hebrew  adjective  "anointed,"  was  entirely  un- 
intelligible to  Greek  ears,  and  became  a  proper  name. 
"Son  of  Man"  or  "Man"  would  have  been  even  more  un- 
intelligible; Paul  never  used  "Son  of  Man,"  and  it  is 
doubtful  whether  he  uses  the  word  "Man"  in  the  technical 
apocalyptic  sense.  But  though  the  words  were  unintel- 
ligible the  ideas  had  not  disappeared.  The  functions 
1  Especially  1  Cor.  xv.  and  1  These,  iv. 


Ill  'Antioch  53 

attributed  to  the  Son  of  Man  in  the  gospels  still  remain 
attributed  to  Jesus  in  the  Pauline  epistles,  though  they  are 
scarcely  so  much  emphasised. 

The  Antiochean  missionaries  seem  to  have  adopted  a 
new  word  to  take  the  place  of  the  unintelligible  "Messiah" 
and  "Son  of  Man,"  and  called  Jesus  "Lord."  It  is  made 
tolerably  certain  by  comparing  the  oldest  strata  of  the 
gospels  with  the  more  recent  that  this  word  was  not  used 
in  Jerusalem  or  in  Galilee  as  a  title  of  Jesus.  It  may 
have  been  used  occasionally  in  Aramaic-speaking  circles, 
but  it  became  dominant  in  Greek.  Its  extreme  impor- 
tance is  that  it  was  already  familiar  to  the  Greek-speaking 
world  in  connection  with  religion.  It  had  become  the 
typical  title  for  the  God  of  one  of  the  Graeco-Oriental  cults 
which  offered  private  salvation  *  to  individuals.  It  was 
therefore  inevitable  that  whatever  the  Jews  may  have 
meant  when  they  called  Jesus  Lord,  their  Greek  converts 
interpreted  it  in  the  sense  in  which  the  word  had  become 
familiar  to  them,  and  thought  in  consequence  that  Jesus 
was  the  divine  head  of  a  cult  by  which  each  individual 
might  obtain  salvation.  The  full  importance  of  this  be- 
came obvious  in  a  purely  Greek  centre  such  as  Corinth, 
but  the  process  began  in  Antioch. 

This  change  in  the  significance  attached  to  Jesus  had  its 
correlative  effect  on  the  position  which  the  Christians 
ascribed  to  themselves.  They  came  inevitably  to  regard 
themselves  as  the  members  of  a  new  cult  which  was  su- 
perior to  all  others.  Only  by  joining  their  number  was 
salvation  to  be  found.  In  this  sense  they  began  to  inter- 
pret the  phrase  "Kingdom  of  God,"  which  in  many  parts 
of  the  gospels  very  obviously  means  the  Christian  Church. 
Few  things,  however,  are  more  certain  than  that  Jesus 
had  no  intention  of  founding  a  new  society  outside  the 
Jewish  Church,  and  none  of  these  passages  can  with  any 
probability  be  ascribed  to  him,  even  though  at  least  one 

1  See  p.  68. 


54:  Early  Christianity  III 

can,  on  mechanical  grounds,  make  out  a  fair  case  for  in- 
clusion in  Q. 

A  correlative  change  was  introduced  into  the  attitude 
adopted  towards  the  Old  Testament.  The  Antiochean 
Christians  refused  to  accept  it  as  an  obligatory  law  of  con- 
duct; but  more  and  more  was  it  interpreted  as  prophetic 
of  Jesus,  and  not  only  of  him  but  also  of  the  Christian 
Church.  In  this  way  everything  that  was  said  of  ancient 
Israel,  and  all  the  promises  made  to  it,  were  transferred 
to  the  Christians,  who  claimed  that  they,  and  not  the  Jews, 
were  the  ancient  People  of  God.  The  complete  fulfilment 
of  this  process  did  not,  it  is  true,  take  place  in  the  time 
of  Paul,  but  it  was  not  long  in  coming,  and  even  in  the 
epistles  there  are  many  places  which  show  that  the  Chris- 
tians regarded  themselves  as  the  true  heirs  of  the  promise. 

This  transference  of  the  Jewish  scriptures  to  the  Chris- 
tian Church  was  probably  almost  as  important  for  the 
future  history  of  Christianity  as  the  change  which  made 
Jesus  the  centre  of  a  cult  offering  private  salvation,  in- 
stead of  the  prophetic  herald  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, 
destined  by  God  to  be  his  representative  at  the  End  of  the 
Age.  It  meant  that  Christianity  shared  with  Judaism 
the  advantage,  which  no  other  religion  in  the  Empire  had, 
of  being  a  religion  with  a  Book.  Nevertheless  the  obvious 
fact  that  the  Book  was  not  originally  Christian  was  des- 
tined in  the  long  run  to  lead  to  considerable  difficulty. 
Though  the  Old  Testament  is  not  always  susceptible  of 
the  meaning  given  to  it  by  Jewish  rabbis,  it  is  essentially 
a  Jewish  book,  and  the  attempt  to  find  in  it  a  series  of 
prophecies  foretelling  the  coming  of  Jesus  was  radically 
wrong.  It  could  not  be  supported  by  any  straightforward 
interpretation,  which  gave  to  the  Old  Testament  its  origi- 
nal historical  meaning.  The  result  was  the  inevitable 
growth  of  an  unnatural  symbolical  interpretation  which 
had  little  difficulty  in  extracting  anything  from  anything. 
It  is  difficult  to  estimate  whether  the  result  has  been  more 
good  or  evil.  It  produced  good,  in  that  it  very  soon  neces- 


Ill  Antiock  55 

sitated  the  growth  of  a  Christian  canon — the  New  Testa- 
ment added  to  the  Old — and  this  preserved  much  great 
literature  for  the  advantage  of  future  generations,  and 
was  a  check  upon  extravagances  of  thought.  Perhaps  most 
important  of  all,  it  provided  an  ethical  standard  which 
successive  generations  of  Christians  have  never  succeeded 
in  practising.  They  have  indeed  frequently  tried  to  ex- 
plain away  the  contrast  between  their  scriptures  and  their 
deeds  when  it  became  too  oppressive,  but  they  have  never 
quite  succeeded,  or  been  able  entirely  to  satisfy  themselves 
by  these  methods:  the  letter  of  scripture  has  constantly 
remained  a  salutary  protest  against  the  interpretation  put 
upon  it.  All  this  has  been  of  enormous  advantage  for  the 
Christian  Church.  But  on  the  other  hand  the  infallibility 
ascribed  to  the  Bible  has  been  an  easy  weapon  for  obscur- 
antism, and  a  drag  on  intellectual  progress.  It  has  pre- 
vented the  Church  from  adopting  the  discoveries  of  science 
and  criticism  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  them  applicable 
to  religious  life.  Bible  Christianity  1  in  some  of  its  more 
recent  forms  has  become  a  serious  danger,  and  in  moments 
of  depression  a  student  is  apt  to  ask  whether  in  the  irony 
of  history  the  Bible,  which  strengthened  and  supported 
the  Church  in  its  early  history,  and  helped  it  in  many  gen- 
erations to  moral  reformation,  is  destined  to  become  an 
instrument  for  preventing  the  adaptation  of  Christianity 
to  the  needs  of  to-day,  and  to  drive  the  spirit  of  religion, 
which  is  eternal,  from  organised  Christianity  to  take 
refuge  once  more  in  some  newer  forms,  more  receptive  of 
truth,  and  less  tenacious  of  error. 

1  The  reference  is  to  certain  American  institutions,  connected  in  the 
main  with  evangelising  movements. 


IV 
COKIJSTTH 

CHKISTIANITY  had  been  profoundly  changed  by 
its  passage  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem.  Whereas 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  had  been  the  announcement 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  illustration  of  its  character, 
and  the  insistent  call  to  men  to  repent,  the  central  teach- 
ing of  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem  became  the  claim  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  But  the  passage  from  Jerusalem 
to  Antioch  had  produced  still  greater  changes.  After  all, 
the  teaching  of  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem  contained  no 
elements  foreign  to  Judaism.  It  was  probably  considered 
by  the  Jewish  authorities  as  the  erroneous  application  to 
Jesus  of  opinions  which,  rightly  or  wrongly,  were  widely 
held  among  the  Jews;  but  nothing  in  it  represented  con- 
cession to  Hellenism.  As  soon  as  Hellenism  was  sus- 
pected the  Christians  were  at  once  driven  out.  In  Anti- 
och, on  the  other  hand,  much  that  was  distinctly  Jewish 
was  abandoned,  and  Hellenistic  thought  adopted,  so  that 
Jesus  became  the  divine  centre  of  a  cult.  It  is  incredible 
that  he  should  have  been  so  regarded  by  the  Jews  of  Jeru- 
salem; it  is  impossible  that  he  should  not  have  been  by 
Gentiles. 

It  is  remarkable  that  Paul  and  the  other  Antiochean 
missionaries  were  willing  to  accept  this  development,  and 
to  make  themselves  the  enthusiastic  agents  of  its  propa- 
ganda ;  but  they  clearly  did  so,  and  the  point  is  of  extreme 
importance  for  the  history  of  Judaism.1  The  only  alter- 
native to  large  concessions  to  the  position  of  the  Dutch 

1  See  C.  Montefiore,  Judaism  and  St.  Paul. 
66 


IV  Corinth  57 

radicals  is  to  admit  that  in  the  Diaspora  the  Hellenising 
of  Jews  had  proceeded  more  rapidly  and  far  deeper  than 
has  as  a  rule  heen  supposed. 

The  result  is  clear,  however  ohscure  the  process  may  be ; 
Christianity  became  a  Graeco-Oriental  cult,  offering  salva- 
tion, just  as  did  the  other  mystery  religions.  It  competed 
with  them  for  the  right  of  succession  to  the  official  religion 
of  Kome,  and  ultimately  it  triumphed.  To  understand 
the  situation  it  is  necessary  to  comprehend  the  general 
nature  of  these  cults,  and  to  see  the  points  of  likeness  and 
difference  in  Christianity. 

In  general  all  the  mystery  religions  assumed  the  exist- 
ence of  a  Lord,  who  had  passed  through  various  experi- 
ences on  earth,  and  finally  been  glorified  and  exalted.  He 
had  left  behind  the  secret  of  obtaining  the  same  reward, 
in  the  form  partly  of  knowledge,  partly  of  magical  cere- 
monies. His  followers  knew  this  secret,  and  admitted 
into  it  those  whom  the  Lord  was  willing  to  accept.  The 
initiated  obtained  protection  in  this  world,  and  a  blessed 
immortality  after  death.  The  Lord  was  probably  not 
usually  identified  with  the  Supreme  God;  for  instance, 
in  Mithraism  the  Sun,  not  Mithras,  was  originally  the 
supreme  God,  though  in  the  last  stages  of  the  cult  the 
difference  between  the  two  was  apparently  blurred,  and 
Mithras  became  indistinguishable  from  the  Sun. 

The  Christianity  revealed  in  1  Corinthians  clearly  con- 
forms to  this  type.  It  has  its  Lord,  Jesus,  who  is  far 
more  than  human,  but  is  not  identified  with  the  supreme 
God  "the  Father'7 ; 1  he  has  suffered  on  earth,  but  been 
glorified  and  exalted,  and  Christians  who  accept  him  in 
faith,  and  are  initiated  into  the  Church  by  the  sacrament 
of  Baptism,  obtain  a  share  in  his  glory,  and  will  enjoy 
a  blessed  immortality.  The  general  resemblance  is  strik- 
ing and  undeniable.  It  may  be  summarised,  as  was  said 
above,  by  the  statement  that  Christianity  offered  men 
salvation,  and  was  believed  to  fulfil  its  offer.  Indeed,  its 
al  Cor.  viii.  6. 


58  Early  Christianity  IV 

success  was  partly  due  not  to  any  difference  from  the  other 
cults,  but  to  the  fact  that  it  made  more  exclusive  claims, 
combined  with  a  higher  ethical  standard,  than  any  other. 

But  what  exactly  was  meant  by  salvation  ?  No  single 
answer  can  be  given.  In  one  sense  salvation  was  pri- 
marily an  eschatological  concept,  though  its  formulation 
was  different  among  Jewish-minded  and  Greek-minded 
believers.  The  Jew  meant,  in  the  main,  that,  at  the  great 
day  when  the  dead  would  rise  and  join  the  living  before 
the  judgement  seat  of  God,  he  would  be  safe  from  the 
Divine  Wrath,  be  acquitted,  and  have  a  place  among  those 
who  would  live  in  happiness  in  the  Age  to  Come.  The 
Greek  probably  thought  rather  that  each  soul  which  was 
saved  would  pass  at  death  to  a  happier  and  better  exist- 
ence. Ultimately  these  two  strands  of  eschatology  were 
woven  together,  though  scarcely  reconciled,  in  the  elabo- 
rate fabric  of  the  Catholic  system  of  purgatory,  paradise, 
resurrection,  judgement,  heaven  and  hell. 

In  another  sense  salvation  meant  something  different, 
which  was  not  eschatological.  In  accordance  with  the  gen- 
eral spirit  of  the  Graeco-Oriental  mysteries,  there  existed 
a  belief  that  through  sacraments  men  could  change  their 
nature,  be  born  again,  and — as  Irenaeus  puts  it — become 
the  children  of  the  eternal  and  unchangeable  God  instead 
of  the  children  of  mortal  man.1  In  this  way  they  passed, 
even  before  death,  into  eternal  life,  and  they  were  raised 
to  an  existence  beyond  the  reach  of  Fate.  The  basis  of 
this  concept  was  doubtless  astral,  and  at  least  some  early 
Christians  believed  that  whereas  the  unbaptized  were  sub- 
ject to  the  inimical  decrees  of  the  stars,  the  regenerate 
were  immune. 

Judged  by  our  standards  this  belief  is  magical,  just  as 
the  Jewish  eschatology  is  mythological.  Neither  has  part 
or  lot  in  modern  thinking ;  this  does  not  necessarily  prove 
that  they  are  wrong,  but  it  means  that  the  problem  for  us 
is  not  one  of  details,  but  of  opposing  systems,  the  parts  of 
1  Irenaeus,  Apostolio  Preaching,  p.  3. 


IV  Corinth  59 

which  cannot  be  interchanged.  We  can,  with  logical  pro- 
priety, accept  the  Graeco-Jewish  eschatology  or  the  Graeco- 
Oriental  sacramental  regeneration  if  we  reject  modern 
thought.  But  we  cannot,  except  in  intellectual  chaos, 
combine  the  two,  or  appropriately  express  modern  thought 
in  language  belonging  to  the  ancient  systems. 

The  modern  man  does  not  believe  in  any  form  of  salva- 
tion known  to  ancient  Christianity.  He  does  believe  that 
so  long  as  life  lasts,  and  he  does  not  know  of  any  limit 
to  its  duration,  good  and  evil  are  realities,  and  those  who 
do  good,  and  are  good,  achieve  life  of  increasingly  higher 
and  higher  potentiality.  If  anything  were  gained  in  prac- 
tical life  by  calling  this  "salvation,"  it  would  be  right  and 
wise  to  do  so.  But  in  fact  it  is  disastrous,  for  it  obscures 
thought  and  confuses  language. 

Thus  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  general  resemblance 
of  the  Christian  offer  of  salvation  to  that  of  other  cults, 
and  the  obvious  point  of  difference — the  presence  of  the 
Jewish  eschatology — has  no  claim  to  superior  truth. 
What,  then,  are  the  points  of  difference  between  Chris- 
tianity and  the  other  cults  which  explain  the  triumph  of 
the  Church?  Two  popular  but  probably  mistaken  ex- 
planations may  first  be  discussed. 

It  is  often  said  that  Christianity  had  an  enormous  ad- 
vantage in  that  Jesus  was  an  historic  person,  whereas  the 
Lords  of  the  other  cults  were  not.  But  closer  analysis 
does  not  confirm  the  importance  of  this  difference. 

The  initiates  of  the  other  cults  believed  that  their  Lords 
were  historic  persons,  just  as  Christians  believed  that 
Jesus  was.  They  had,  indeed,  lived  a  long  time  ago,  but 
this  was  no  disadvantage:  any  one  who  reads  Tatian's 
Gratia  ad  Graecos  can  see  how  antiquity,  not  recentness, 
was  regarded  as  desirable.  The  general  argument  of 
Christians  was  not  that  Jesus  was  historic,  and  the  other 
Lords  were  not,  but  that  he  fulfilled  a  true  offer  of  sal- 
vation, made  in  a  more  remote  antiquity  than  any  pagan 


60  Early  Christianity  IV 

religion  could  claim,  while  the  heathen  Lords  were  demons, 
misunderstanding  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament, 
clumsily  simulating  their  fulfilment,  and  arrogating  to 
themselves  the  title  of  God.  It  was  of  course  an  advan- 
tage that  the  "sacred  legend"  of  Christianity  was  free  from 
the  repulsive  elements  in  other  cults,  which  it  taxed  the 
ingenuity  of  a  Julian  to  explain. 

Moreover,  historical  criticism  shows  that  the  points  in 
the  story  of  Jesus  which  played  the  greatest  part  in  com- 
mending Christianity  to  a  generation  asking  for  private 
salvation  are  those  which  are  not  historic.  The  element 
of  truth  in  much  perverse  criticism,  arguing  that  Jesus 
never  existed,  is  that  the  Jesus  of  history  is  quite  different 
from  the  Lord  assumed  as  the  founder  of  Catholic  Chris- 
tianity. The  Church  conquered  the  world  by  offering 
salvation  through  a  redeeming  Lord.  Jesus  made  no  such 
offer :  to  him  the  Kingdom  of  God,  the  pearl  of  great  price, 
was  the  natural  inheritance  of  men,  if  they  would  only 
take  it  No  supernatural  change  of  nature,  hut  to  turn 
round,  abandon  all  that  hindered,  and  go  in  the  right 
direction — go  home — was  the  repentance  which  he  re- 
quired. Probably  it  was  not  unique  teaching:  it  is  very- 
hard  to  obey,  and  it  makes  no  spectacular  demands.  Its 
only  claim  to  acceptance  is  its  truth.  It  did  not  conquer 
the  world.  Nor  did  Jesus — the  Jesus  of  history — think 
that  it  would  do  so.  "Strait  is  the  gate  and  narrow  is  the 
way  that  leadeth  unto  Life,  and  few  there  are  that  find  it." 

Thus  the  theory  that  Catholic  Christianity  succeeded 
because  Jesus  was  an  historic  person  cannot  be  sustained. 

Nor  is  there  much  more  truth  in  the  attribution  of  its 
success  to  the  influence  of  the  personality  of  Jesus.  No 
doubt  it  was  the  personality  of  Jesus  which  influenced  his 
immediate  followers,  made  them  regard  him  as  the 
Davidic  Messiah  or  as  "Son  of  Man,"  and  rendered  pos- 
sible their  belief  in  his  exaltation  to  the  right  hand  of 
God.  Without  this  belief  Christianity  could  never  have 
come  into  existence;  but  once  the  belief  waa  established 


IV  Corinth  61 

it  became  the  foundation  of  the  whole  structure,  and  the 
personality  of  Jesus  was  quite  eclipsed  by  the  supernatural 
value  attached  to  him.  Not  the  men  who  had  known 
Jesus,  but  those  who  had  not,  converted  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, and  their  gospel  was  that  of  the  Cross,  Resurrection, 
and  Parousia,  not  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  or  an  ethical 
interpretation  of  the  Parables,  or  a  moral  imitatio  Chnsti. 

The  true  answer  is  that  Catholic  Christianity  conquered 
because  it  was  popular,  not  because  it  was  true,  and  failed 
for  the  same  reason.  Permanence,  not  popularity,  is  the 
test  of  truth ;  for  truth  has  often  no  adherents,  while  error 
has  many. 

The  permanent  truth  in  Christianity  is,  I  think,  to  be 
found  in  the  spirit,  or  perhaps  more  correctly  the  "will," 
which  Jesus  had,  and  tried  to  hand  on  to  his  disciples,  of 
service  and  self-sacrifice.  It  calls  men  to  redeem  others, 
rather  than  to  seek  redemption  for  themselves.  This  is 
to  spiritual  life  what  gravitation  is  to  the  physical  world. 
It  was  known  to  others  before  him  and  after,  but  it  has 
not  yet  conquered  the  world. 

But  the  popular  teaching  1  which  loomed  largest  in  the 
early  days  of  the  Church  offered  the  privilege  rather  than 
the  responsibility  of  redemption,  and  maintained  that 
the  Christian  was  united  to  the  Supreme  God — a  claim 
higher  than  that  made  by  any  other  cult.  This  side  of 
Christianity,  though  not  Jewish,  was  in  the  main  derived 
from  Judaism,  from  which  all  the  first  Christian  mission- 
aries accepted  the  preaching  of  the  one  supreme  God, 
whom  Paul  constantly  refers  to  as  "the  Father."  There 
has  been  of  recent  years  much  loose  writing  and  looser 
speech  about  the  "Fatherhood  of  God."  It  has  even  been 
asserted  that  this  was  the  special  revelation  of  Jesus,  Such 
a  view  does  not  for  a  moment  sustain  any  critical  inves- 

*I  would  emphasise  the  word  popular.  The  great  missionaries 
were  doubtless  inspired  by  the  desire  to  save  others,  by  the  will  to 
minister  rather  than  be  ministered  to,  and  by  a  readiness  to  give 
their  lives  as  a  ransom  for  others,  but  their  converts  were  otherwise 
minded. 


62  Early  Christianity  IV 

tigation.  No  doubt  Jesus  sometimes,  possibly  often,  spoke 
of  God  as  "Father" ;  but  so  did  many  other  Jews.  They 
and  he  referred  to  the  moral  sonship  of  the  righteous,  not 
to  a  supernatural  or  sacramental  relation.  Nor  is  there 
any  sign  that  Jesus  felt  that  he  had  any  new  revelation 
as  to  the  nature  of  God :  he  was  much  more  intent  on  tell- 
ing men  what  they  ought  to  do  to  conform  to  the  demands 
of  God. 

But  after  the  time  of  Jesus  the  use  of  "Father"  as 
applied  to  God  became  more  and  more  general ;  especially 
to  denote  the  peculiar  relationship — however  that  may 
have  been  conceived — between  Jesus  and  God.  This  use 
is  especially  characteristic  of  the  editor  of  Matthew,  and 
still  more  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  It  is  the  correlative  to 
the  process  by  which  "Jesus,  the  Son  of  God/'  became 
"God  the  Son." 

The  Hellenistic  Christians  seem  to  have  been  particu- 
larly fond  of  this  use;  partly  perhaps  from  linguistic 
reasons.  The  Greek  for  Jehovah  is  wpios,  Lord;  but 
this  word  had  been  already  taken  as  the  title  of  Jesus. 
Therefore  when  a  Christian-speaking  Greek  wished  to 
refer  to  Jehovah  he  could  not  without  ambiguity  say  "The 
Lord,"  and  he  began  to  adopt  the  usage  of  referring  to 
Jehovah  as  "the  Father."  But  what  would  have  been  the 
implication  to  Greek  ears  of  this  usage  ?  Two  lines  were 
possible:  it  could  be  interpreted  as  referring  exclusively 
to  the  relation  between  God  and  Jesus,  or  as  referring  to 
the  relation  between  God  and  men.  Paul  is  evidence  that 
the  second,  as  well  as  the  first,  was  accepted.  "As  many 
as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  Sons  of  God." 
But  how  would  a  Greek  have  understood  this  verse? 
Probably  he  would  have  thought  that  it  meant  that  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit  changed  men's  nature;  so  that,  as 
Irenaeus  said,  two  generations  later,  they  were  no  longer 
mortal  men  but  the  children  of  the  immortal  God.  To 
the  Greek  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  was  the  gift  of  divine 
nature,  immortal  and  incorruptible.  That  is,  of  course, 


IV  Corintti  \         63 

in  nowise  Jewish:  even  if  Paul  meant  this,  which  is 
doubtful,  he  did  so  by  virtue  of  his  Greek  associations. 
The  question,  however,  has  not  been  adequately  discussed 
how  far  this  interpretation  is  exactly  the  same  as  that  of 
the  other  cults.  It  clearly  brought  the  Christian  into 
direct  relation  with  the  Supreme  God,  through  the  Lord. 
Was  this  so  in  Mithraism  or  in  the  cult  of  Isis  2  In  both 
of  them  it  seems  rather  that  the  initiate  was  brought 
rather  into  relationship  with  the  Lord.1  Surely  it  was  a 
real  advantage  to  Christian  propaganda  that  the  Church 
offered  union  with  the  Supreme  God  more  definitely  than 
did  any  rival  cult. 

Two  elements  must  be  distinguished  in  such  teaching. 
Permanently  important  in  it  is  the  recognition  of  the  fact 
that  a  helping  hand  of  grace  stretches  out  from  the  un- 
known to  help  man  when  he  cries  from  the  depths:  but 
it  contains  also  a  theory  as  to  the  origin  and  nature  of 
grace.  The  fact  is  indisputable,  the  theory  depends  on 
evidence;  and  there  is  really  none  to  justify  confident 
assertion.  JSTo  doubt  it  was  an  enormous  asset  to  Chris- 
tianity to  proclaim  that  the  grace  found  by  its  adherents 
came  straight  from  the  cause  of  all  existence.  The  same 
situation  was  reproduced  after  the  Keformation,  and  it 

1  This  statement  would  be  required  to  be  modified  for  detailed 
application  to  various  classes  both  among  Christians  and  among 
initiates  in  the  other  cults.  In  all  cults  there  was  probably  an 
uneducated  substratum  which  thought  very  little  about  the  subject. 
It  was  satisfied  with  the  fact  of  salvation,  and  was  not  specially 
interested  in  its  method.  On  the  other  hand,  the  educated  with  a 
metaphysical  tendency  were  interested  in  the  relation  of  the  Lord 
of  the  cult  to  the  Supreme  God,  and  this  might,  in  time,  have 
produced  something  similar  to  the  Christological  speculations  of  the 
fourth  century.  Apuleius  seems  to  identify  the  Supreme  God  with 
the  Lord  in  a  manner  which  at  times  reminds  the  reader  of  Sabel- 
lian  Christianity.  On  the  other  hand,  Heliogabalus  seems  to  have 
produced  a  complete  amalgam  between  Mithras  and  Helios,  and  re- 
minds us  of  the  tendency  of  uneducated  Christianity  in  all  genera- 
tions to  make  the  gospel  become  the  preaching  of  the  new  God, 
or  the  true  God,  Jesus,  of  which  I  heard  a  somewhat  extreme 
example  from  a  preacher  who  maintained  fervidly  that  Jehovah  was 
the  Hebrew  of  Jesus. 


64  Early  Christianity  IV 

was  an  asset  to  Protestantism  to  claim  direct  access  to 
God,  without  the  mediation  of  saints.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
hard  to  see  that  there  is  any  evidence  to  favour  the  theory 
that  grace  comes  in  the  one  way  rather  than  the  other. 
The  element  of  truth  in  the  early  Christian  teaching  is 
not  the  side  which  was  most  popular,  but  rather  that 
which,  a  little  later,  partly  unconsciously,  animated  the 
Church  in  rejecting  Marcionism — the  conviction  that 
there  is  no  essential  disharmony  or  final  clash  in  history, 
that  the  God  of  creation  is  not  hostile  to  the  God  of  grace.1 

Moreover,  it  was  not  only — or  even  chiefly — the  help- 
ing hand  of  grace  in  the  troubles  and  sorrows  of  life 
which  Greek  Christians  especially  hoped  for  by  union 
with  the  supreme  God  or  by  the  power  of  Jesus.  It  was 
rather  the  gift  of  eternal  Life  after  death,  which  was  the 
special  characteristic  of  the  Gods.  The  points  of  impor- 
tance are  the  means  whereby  they  thought  that  this  im- 
mortality was  obtained,  and  the  nature  which  they 
ascribed  to  it. 

The  act  by  which  the  faithful  acquired  immortality 
was  Baptism.  The  history  of  this  distinctively  Christian 
rite  is  obscure.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  historian  of 
religions  it  is  the  combination  of  a  Jewish  ceremony  with 
Graeco-Oriental  ideas.  The  Jews  had  frequently  prac- 
tised ceremonial  washing  with  a  religious  significance — 
generally  speaking,  purification  from  the  guilt  of  offences 
against  the  ritual  law ;  it  was  also  part  of  the  initiation  of 
proselytes,  and  had  been  largely  practised  by  John  the 
Forerunner.  But  in  no  case  did  any  Jew  think  that 
washing  could  change,  sacramentally  or  magically,  the 
nature  of  man.  A  Greek  on  the  other  hand,  brought  up 
in  the  atmosphere  of  the  mysteries,  might  well  have 
thought  so.  The  same  is  true  of  the  other  constituent 

*See  the  last  chapter  of  F.  C.  Burkitt's  The  Gospel  History  and 
its  Transmission.  This  chapter  is  a  most  clear-sighted  analysis  of 
one  of  the  essentials  of  Catholic  truth  as  opposed  to  error,  and  I 
venture  to  say  this  because  its  importance  seems  in  general  to  be 
overlooked. 


IV  Corinth  65 

element  in  primitive  Christian  Baptism — the  formula 
"in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  There  is  no  reason 
why  Jews  should  not  have  used  the  name  of  Jesus  for 
magical  purposes — indeed  they  undoubtedly  did  so — for 
magic  was  not  peculiar  to  the  Greeks.  But  the  ordinary 
Jew  would  never  have  practised  magic  to  secure  immor- 
tality or  to  become  divine.  He  believed  that  immortality 
was  the  natural  lot  of  all  the  chosen  people  who  kept  the 
Law,  and  would  be  reached,  not  through  sacraments  or 
secret  knowledge,  but  through  the  resurrection  at  the  last 
day.  Thus  it  is  possible  that  the  first  Jewish  Christians 
may  have  practised  baptism  by  an  extension  of  the  ordi- 
nary ritual  of  proselyte-making,  or  as  a  means  of  securing 
remission  of  sins,  in  the  spirit  of  John  the  Baptist,  but 
it  is  extremely  improbable  that  it  was  for  them  the  sacra- 
ment of  regeneration  to  eternal  life  which  it  was  held 
to  be  by  Greek  Christians. 

Turning  from  the  possibilities  and  probabilities  sug- 
gested by  the  history  of  religion  to  the  evidence  of  the 
early  literature  critically  studied,  two  points  stand  out 
as  probable.  First,  Jesus  neither  practised  nor  enjoined 
baptism  of  any  kind;  secondly,  the  Antiochean  mission- 
aries always  practised  baptism  "in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus."  The  second  point  is  so  obviously  proved  both  by 
Acts  and  the  Pauline  epistles  that  it  requires  no  discus- 
sion. The  first  has  the  limitations  of  the  argument  from 
silence,  for  it  rests  on  the  fact  that  there  is  no  trace  of 
Baptism  by  Jesus,  either  by  practice  or  precept,  in  the 
synoptic  gospels,  except  a  single  statement  in  Matt, 
xxviii.  19,  in  which  the  risen  Jesus  is  represented  as  com- 
manding the  disciples  to  undertake  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles  (  rd  Wvrj )  and  their  baptism  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  That  this  verse  is  not 
historical  but  a  late  tradition,  intended  to  support  eccle- 
siastical practice,  is  shown  by  the  absence  of  the  trine 
formula  of  baptism  in  Acts  and  the  Epistles,  and  the  ex- 
treme reluctance  with  which  the  apostles,  who  are  sup- 


66  Early  Christianity  IV 

posed  to  have  received  this  revelation,  undertook  a  mission 
to  the  Gentiles.  We  have  to  choose  between  the  account 
in  Matthew,  which  makes  the  mission  to  the  Gentiles 
the  result  of  the  command  of  the  risen  Jesus  in  Galilee, 
or  that  in  Acts,  confirmed  by  Paul,  which  makes  it  begin 
much  later  from  the  preaching  in  Antioch  of  the  scattered 
adherents  of  Stephen,  and  from  revelations  to  Paul  and 
Peter,  on  the  road  to  Damascus,  and  at  Joppa.  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  Acts  ought  to  be  trusted  on  this 
point. 

Few  problems  are  more  obscure  than  the  question  of 
the  growth  of  baptism  in  the  Church  of  this  first  period. 
This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  editor  of  Acts  was  con- 
vinced that  baptism  was  a  primitive  Christian  custom 
even  in  Jerusalem,  though  unlike  Matthew  he  does  not 
attribute  it  to  Jesus.  Nevertheless,  it  is  possible  to  see 
indications  that  his  sources  did  not  confirm  his  opinion. 
An  excellent  case  can  be  made  for  the  view  that  the  source 
used  in  Acts  i.  and  ii.  originally  regarded  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  at  Pentecost  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  attrib- 
uted to  Jesus  that  his  disciples,  unlike  those  of  John, 
should  be  baptized  in  the  Holy  Spirit  not  in  water.  The 
exhortation  of  Peter  in  Acts  ii.  that  his  hearers  should 
repent  and  "be  "baptized  is  so  inconsistent  with  this  promise 
that  it  seems  due  to  the  redactor.  Similarly,  too,  the 
baptism  of  Cornelius  seems  to  contradict  the  context  of 
Peter's  own  explanation  in  Acts  xi.,  and  may  well  be  re- 
dactorial.  On  the  other  hand,  the  later  chapters  agree 
with  these  redactorial  additions  in  regarding  baptism  as 
the  source  of  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  and  there  can  here  be 
no  question  of  editorial  additions,  for  the  references  to 
baptism  are  clearly  part  of  the  fabric  of  the  narrative. 
The  most  illuminating  evidence,  however,  is  afforded  by 
the  chapters  describing  Philip's  work:  in  these  baptism 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  is  represented  as  the  cus- 
tom of  Philip,  but  it  does  not  confer  the  gift  of  the  Spirit. 


IV 


Corinth  67 


This  may  be  the  best  clue  to  the  historical  development 
of  the  rite.  The  Seven,  including  Philip,  were  probably 
the  first  to  convert  Gentiles,  and  inasmuch  as  the  com- 
plete breach  with  Judaism  had  not  yet  come,  must  have 
regarded  their  converts  as  proselytes,  and  treated  them 
accordingly.  Baptism  was  part  of  the  usual  treatment  of 
a  proselyte,  and  the  formula  "in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus"  would  merely  distinguish  these  proselytes  from 
others. 

A  little  later  the  practice  would  certainly  be  interpreted 
by  Greeks,  or  Graeco-Orientals,  in  the  light  of  the  cults 
which  they  knew;  baptism  would  become  the  magical  or, 
at  least,  sacramental  means  of  salvation,  and  the  Name  of 
Jesus  its  necessary  formula.  The  development  is  exactly 
similar  to  that  passed  through  by  the  word  "Lord," — 
though  its  origin  was  Jewish  its  interpretation  was 
Greek.1 

The  expectation  of  immortality  conferred  by  Baptism 
and  membership  in  the  Church  of  the  Lord  Jesus  varied 
in  form.  The  Greek  eschatology  was  different  from  the 
Jewish,  and  looked  for  an  immortality  for  each  individual 
immediately  after  death.  It  was,  moreover,  an  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  not  of  the  body.  Probably  there  were 
many  variations  of  thought  on  the  subject.  Some  of  the 
most  highly  educated  Greeks  may  have  understood  the 
arguments  for  and  against  immaterial  Reality,  and  ac- 
cepted or  rejected  them.  Roughly  speaking,  Platonists 
accepted,  Stoics  and  Epicureans  rejected;  and  it  was  at 
least  possible  for  Platonists,  if  they  identified  Mind  with 
immaterial  Reality,  to  believe  in  the  immortality  of  the 
human  mind.  But  did  such  Platonists  actually  exist  be- 
fore Plotinus,  or  possibly  Ammonius  Saccus?  The  frag- 
mentary evidence  which  exists  seems  to  show  that  philo- 
sophic Greeks  were  interested  in  other  problems — mainly 
epistemological  and  psychological.  The  belief  in  the  im- 
16ee  Prolegomena  to  Acts,  j 


68  Early  Christianity  IV 

mortality  of  the  soul  was  preserved  by  the  tradition  of 
the  Mysteries,1  not  by  the  Academy. 

Stoics  and  Epicureans,  far  more  important  for  the 
first  century  than  Academics,  were  materialists ;  but  that 
does  not  mean  that  they  did  not  believe  in  the  existence 
of  a  human  soul  or  spirit.  Spirit  was  for  them  merely 
the  most  attenuated  form  of  matter.  The  spirit  of  man 
might  be  dissipated  after  death,  as  the  grosser  material 
composing  his  body  would  be,  or  it  might  survive  and 
retain  consciousness  and  memory  until  the  cycle  came 
round  when  all  things,  including  human  careers,  would 
be  repeated. 

But  the  first  Greek  Christians  were  scarcely  influenced 
by  an  intelligent  comprehension  of  Stoic  metaphysics,  and 
attempts  made  to  trace  their  direct  influence  in  Paul  or 
elsewhere  only  show  that  their  vocabulary  was  more  widely 
used  than  their  problems  were  understood — a  phenomenon 
not  peculiar  to  the  first  century.  All  that  can  be  said 
with  any  confidence  is  that  the  expectation  of  blessed 
immortality — not  for  all  but  for  the  chosen  few — fostered 
by  the  mysteries  was  probably  most  often  conceived  as 
the  survival  of  the  soul  after  death,  and  the  soul  in  turn 
was  conceived  as  "Spirit,"  a  highly  attenuated  material 
existence,  which  was  found  until  death  in  the  body,  and 
was  then  released  from  it. 

In  some  such  way  the  Greeks  in  Corinth  who  were 
converted  to  Christianity  expected  immortality.  So  they 
did  also  in  the  other  cults  offering  salvation.  The  points 
of  difference  in  Christianity  are  in  the  kind  of  life  which 
was  demanded  from  initiates,  and  in  the  final  consum- 
mation expected. 

1  Corinthians  shows  clearly  that  some  Hellenic  Chris- 
tians held  that  having  secured  immortality  they  were  free 

1  From  which  indeed  Plato  had  probably  obtained  it.  He  justified 
it,  handily  enough,  from  his  doctrine  of  Ideas,  but  scarcely  derived 
it  thence.  The  triumph  of  Aristotle  destroyed  his  justification,  but 
the  parent  stream  flowed  on  placidly,  undisturbed  by  thought. 


IV  Corinth  69 

to  do  as  they  liked  with  their  bodies.  Paul  insisted  on  the 
observance  of  that  morality  which  was  central  in  Judaism. 
He  had  rendered  his  task  difficult  by  his  rejection  of  the 
Law,  but  he  won  his  fight,  and  the  permanent  association 
of  Jewish  morality  with  the  Christian  Church  and  its 
Hellenic  Christology  and  sacraments  was  the  result. 

In  the  same  way  Paul  contended  successfully  for  the 
Jewish  doctrine  of  a  resurrection,  though  with  some  modi- 
fications. This  was  not  the  same  thing  as  the  Greek 
belief  in  personal  immortality.  The  Sadducees,  indeed, 
may  have  Hellenised  on  this  subject,  as  did  some  of  the 
Alexandrian  Jews,  represented  by  the  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon. But  the  bulk  of  the  people  followed  the  Pharisees 
and  looked  for  a  resurrection  of  the  body,  at  the  end  of 
the  age. 

Paul  and  the  other  missionaries  continued  to  teach 
this  Jewish  doctrine,  but  were  not  at  once  able  to  con- 
vince their  Greek  hearers  that  immortality  must  neces- 
sarily be  reached  through  a  resurrection  of  the  body. 
Presumably  the  Greeks  felt  that  immortality  was  suffi- 
cient, and  a  future  reunion  between  an  immortal  soul  and 
a  resuscitated  body  was  as  undesirable  as  improbable. 
Paul  in  1  Corinthians  insists  on  the  Jewish  doctrine, 
but  he  makes  the  concession  to  the  Greeks  that  the  resur- 
rection will  not  be  of  flesh  and  blood  but  of  a  "spiritual" 
body,  that  is  to  say,  a  body  consisting  of  the  most  attenu- 
ated form  of  matter.  It  will  be  the  same  body,  but  it  will 
be  changed. 

This  modified  form  of  Jewish  thought  was  supported 
by  an  appeal  to  the  case  of  Jesus,  who  had  already  risen 
from  the  dead.  The  appeal  was  really  far  more  effective 
than  the  rest  of  Paul's  argument,  which  was  not  calcu- 
lated to  convince  the  doubtful,  and  it  has  the  special  im- 
portance for  the  historian  that  it  proves  that  Paul  did 
not  think  the  risen  Jesus  had  a  body  of  flesh  and  blood, 
and  believed  that  in  this  he  was  in  agreement  with  all 
the  early  witnesses. 


70  Early  Christianity  IV 

Nevertheless,  the  belief  of  the  Church  soon  affirmed 
what  remained  its  unchanged  faith  until  the  nineteenth 
century — the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  both  of  the  Lord 
in  the  past,  and  of  the  Christian  in  the  future.  This  was 
the  triumph  of  Jewish  thought,  and  is  an  exception  to  the 
general  rule  that  Christianity  became  steadily  more 
Hellenic. 

The  reason  why  Jewish  thought  triumphed  is  difficult 
to  ascertain.  Few  hypotheses  as  to  a  future  life  have 
less  intrinsic  probability  than  that  ultimately  reached, 
which  postulates  an  immortal  soul  living  discarnate  until 
the  resurrection  day,  when  it  will  be  reunited  to  its  own 
resuscitated  body,  and  both  will  be  rewarded  or  punished 
by  the  final  judgement  of  God.  Nevertheless  this  hypoth- 
esis supplanted  all  others. 

Two  causes  may  be  suggested.  The  pressure  of  the 
Docetic  controversy,  which  insisted  that  Jesus  had  never 
been  a  real  man  of  flesh  and  blood,  but  a  spirit  appearing 
in  human  form,  made  the  Church  attach  greater  weight  to 
the  reality  of  his  flesh  and  blood,  even  after  the  resurrec- 
tion. Hence  arose  the  narratives  of  the  appearances  of 
the  risen  Jesus  in  Luke  and  John,  emphasising  this  point. 
That  they  there  are  secondary  seems  to  be  proved  by  the 
evidence  of  1  Cor.  xv.  Hence,  too,  it  may  be,  came  the 
suppression  of  the  missing  end  of  Mark.  Following  this 
tendency  it  was  natural  to  argue,  as  Paul  had  done,  that 
Christians  like  Jesus  would  be  raised  with  the  same  bodies 
which  they  had  had. 

A  different  motive  was  provided  by  moral  considera- 
tions. It  is  clear  that  there  was  danger,  even  in  the 
Corinth  of  Paul's  days,  of  men  arguing  that,  having  ob- 
tained the  Spirit  and  consequent  immortality,  nothing 
carnal  had  any  importance:  the  body  had,  as  it  were,  but 
a  short  time,  and  might  be  allowed  to  enjoy  itself  as  it 
chose.  To  combat  this  danger  of  an  absolutely  licentious 
position  the  Church  maintained  that  the  body  was  as 


IV  Corinth  71 

eternal  as  the  soul,  and  that  its  future  happiness  depended 
on  its  present  behaviour. 

Both  these  factors  undoubtedly  entered  into  the  devel- 
opment of  Christian  thought;  and  they  were  reinforced 
by  the  natural  desire  of  man  to  preserve  the  pleasures  of 
life  in  a  body  of  flesh  and  blood. 

The  whole  question  of  the  expectation  of  immortality 
is  as  obscure  as  it  is  interesting.  Direct  evidence  in 
favour  of  a  survival  of  individual  consciousness  after 
death  is  provided  in  the  present  by  psychical  research, 
arid  from  the  past  by  narratives  of  the  apparitions  of  the 
dead,  among  which  the  story  of  the  appearances  of  the 
risen  Jesus  must  be  classed.  To  most  minds  the  evidence 
does  not  justify  a  decisive  verdict  of  any  nature. 

The  "moral"  argument  is  equally  evasive.  To  certain 
minds  in  certain  moods  it  seems  incredible  that  extinction 
can  await  beings  who  display  the  qualities  manifested  by 
men  at  their  best,  animated  by  such  high  purposes,  so 
little  fulfilled.  In  Christian  circles  the  argument  has 
helped  to  secure  the  orthodox  belief  in  the  resurrection  of 
the  body.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  this  belief  has  received 
a  succession  of  shocks  from  other  considerations.  The 
resuscitation  of  the  flesh  has  become  more  and  more  in- 
credible. Bishop  Westcott  endeavoured  to  meet  this  feel- 
ing by  reviving  the  Pauline  notion  of  a  body  of  "Spirit/' 
and  was  followed  by  Bishop  Gore  in  so  doing.  The 
process  was  helped  by  the  fact  that  in  the  English  creed 
resurrectio  carnis  is  translated  resurrection  of  the  body, 
so  that  the  denial  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  involved  in  the 
Westcott-Gore  interpretation  could  be  softened  into  an 
apparent  affirmation. 

Even  more  serious,  though  less  often  expressed,  is  the 
moral  objection  to  the  judgement,  which  dooms  men  to 
extremes  of  bliss  or  misery  in  accordance  as  they  fall  one 
side  or  the  other  of  a  certain  line.  The  conscience  of  the 


72  Early  Christianity  IV 

modern  man  feels  that  no  one  deserves  either  Heaven  or 
Hell.  Moreover,  this  same  conscience  doubts  whether  any 
one  really  deserves  complete  perpetuation.  All  men  are 
of  mixed  nature;  some  elements  seem  to  deserve  to  be 
eliminated,  and  others  to  survive.  Thus  the  moral  indict- 
ment against  the  old  expectation  of  judgement  is  that  no 
one  deserves  either  of  its  extremes. 

A  just  judgement  would  be  not  between  man  and  man, 
saving  one  and  condemning  the  other,  but  between  dif- 
ferent parts  of  each  of  us.  For  in  man  good  and  evil 
are  always  present:  what  we  ask  for  is  not  complete  sur- 
vival, but  the  ultimate  elimination  of  some  parts  and  the 
constant  growth  of  others;  we  desire  change,  not  perma- 
nence.1 Moreover,  even  in  the  short  space  of  life  which 
we  can  observe,  elimination  and  selection  are  clearly 
present.  The  child  and  the  old  man  are  one,  not  by 
identity  but  by  continuity  of  life.  The  main  object  of 
education  is  to  further  and  confirm  this  beneficent  change. 
Once  more,  this,  or  something  like  it,  is  often  put  for- 
ward as  the  meaning  of  the  doctrine  of  "judgement." 
But  when  the  creed  states  that  Jesus  will  "come  again  in 
glory  to  judge  both  the  quick  and  dead,"  it  means  the 
Jewish  eschatological  expectation,  and  to  use  its  language 
to  express  modern  thought  is  unfair  to  both. 

All  such  thoughts  are  a  priori,  and  can  never  convince 
the  reluctant.  The  path  of  wisdom  is  not  to  weigh  the 
merits  of  various  inconclusive  arguments,  but  to  distin- 
guish between  Desire  and  Knowledge. 

Desire  for  most  men  is  to  remain  essentially  as  they 
are.  The  healthy  enjoy  life,  and  even  the  unhealthy  cling 
to  it.  If  we  are  candid  most  of  us  admit  that  we  should 
like  indefinitely  prolonged  existence,  that  we  have  an 
infinite  curiosity  to  know  what  is  going  to  happen  in  the 
world,  and  a  wish  to  take  part  in  its  development.  That 
is  Desire. 

1This  has  much  in  common  with  Origen's  teaching,  but  unfortu- 
nately Origen  was  rejected  by  the  Catholic  Church. 


IV  Corinth  73 

Over  against  Desire  is  Knowledge.  We  know  that  mat- 
ter is  indestructible,  though  it  changes  its  form,  and  that 
energy  is  equally  indestructible,  but  constantly  varies  its 
form.  If  Life  be  similar  to  energy  this  gives  us  reason 
to  believe  that  it  is  permanent,  but  that  its  form  changes. 
If,  however,  Life  be  a  form  of  Energy,  not  a  force  similar 
to  it,  there  is  no  reason  to  expect  its  permanence.  The 
chief  reason  against  this  view  is  that  whereas  we  can 
convert  heat  into  electricity,  or  electricity  into  light,  we 
cannot — as  yet — convert  either  into  Life. 

So  far  Knowledge  takes  us  on  the  hypothesis  that  Life 
is  material,  for  Energy  is  not  outside  of  the  world  of 
matter.  But  still  within  the  field  of  Knowledge  is  the 
old  problem  of  Immaterial  Reality  and  its  relation  to 
Life.  To  those  who  are  convinced,  as  I  am  myself,  by 
the  old  arguments  in  favour  of  Immaterial  Reality,  con- 
ceivable but  not  imaginable,  it  is  certain  that  intel- 
lectual and  moral  life  belongs  to  it  and  shares  its  attri- 
butes of  eternity.  Metaphysics  are  more  convincing  than 
psychology.  But  need  this  mean  that  this  eternal  life 
is  personal?  ~No  one  as  yet  has  answered  this  ques- 
tion. 

And  there  are  further  considerations :  all  that  we  know 
of  life  teaches  us  that  it  is  a  succession  of  losses.  The 
passage  from  youth  to  middle  life,  and  the  change  from 
middle  life  to  old  age  are  losses,  from  which  we  shrink. 
No  man  willingly  surrenders  the  flexibility  of  youth  or 
the  power  of  middle  life.  But  the  experience — shrunk 
from  and  postponed  though  it  be — teaches  that  through 
loss  came  gain.  Yet  none  of  us  ever  foresaw  the  form 
which  the  gain  would  take.  After  old  age  comes  death: 
that  too  is  loss.  Is  it  also  gain?  If  Life  continue,  and 
that  at  least  seems  probable,  Knowledge  teaches  us  that 
it  will  change  its  form  and  that  here,  too,  gain  will  come 
through  loss.  But,  it  is  often  said,  this  is  the  denial  of 
the  survival  of  personality,  and  it  is  personality,  not  life, 
which  we  desire.  No  doubt  we  do :  but  we  desire  to  keep 


74  Early  Christianity  IV 

much  which  we  lose,  and  yet  come  to  see  that  only  thus 
could  we  achieve  the  greater  gain.1 

After  all,  Faith  is  not  belief  in  spite  of  evidence,  but 
life  in  scorn  of  consequence — a  courageous  trust  in  the 
great  purpose  of  all  things  and  pressing  forward  to  finish 
the  work  which  is  in  sight,  whatever  the  price  may  be. 
Who  knows  whether  the  "personality"  of  which  men  talk 
so  much  and  know  so  little  may  not  prove  to  be  the  tem- 
porary limitation  rather  than  the  necessary  expression  of 
Life? 

There  was  once  an  archipelago  of  islands  off  a  moun- 
tainous coast  separated  from  each  other  and  from  the 
mainland  by  the  sea.  But  in  course  of  time  the  sea  dried 
up,  the  islands  were  joined  to  the  great  mountain  behind 
them,  and  it  became  clear  that  they  had  always  been 
united  by  solid  ground  under  a  very  shallow  sea.  If 
those  islands  could  have  thought  and  spoken  what  would 
they  have  said?  Before  the  event  they  would  have  pro- 
tested against  losing  their  insularity,  but  would  they 
have  done  so  afterwards,  when  the  water  which  divided 
them  from  each  other  was  gone,  and  they  knew  that  they 
were  part  of  the  great  mountain  which  before  they  had 
only  dimly  seen,  obscured  by  the  mists  rising  from  the 


aSee  additional  note  on  p.  107. 


KOME  AND  EPHESUS 

COEINTH  as  portrayed  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
gives  us  our  simplest  and  least  contaminated  pic- 
ture of  the  Hellenic  Christianity  which  regarded 
itself  as  the  cult  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  who  offered  salvation 
— immortality — to  those  initiated  in  his  mysteries.  It 
had  obvious  weaknesses  in  the  eyes  of  Jewish  Christians, 
even  when  they  were  as  Hellenised  as  Paul,  since  it  offered 
little  reason  for  a  higher  standard  of  conduct  than  heath- 
enism, and  its  personal  eschatology  left  no  real  place  for 
the  resurrection  of  the  hody.  The  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the 
Corinthians  are  in  the  main  protests  against  this  Hellenic 
weakness,  and  the  real  monument  to  Paul  in  the  first  two, 
or  perhaps  even  four,  centuries  is  the  success  which  he  had 
in  driving  home  these  protests.  Owing  to  later  contro- 
versies we  are  apt  to  treat  Justification  by  Faith  as  Paul's 
greatest  contribution  to  the  Church.  Possibly  that  is 
true,  if  the  whole  of  Church  history  be  taken  into  account, 
but  the  attempt  to  reconstruct  "Paulinism"  on  this  prin- 
ciple produces  the  result  that  the  effect  of  PauPs  teaching 
cannot  be  traced  in  any  of  the  Christian  writings  of  the 
next  two  centuries.  This  is  obviously  absurd:  if  Paul's 
writings  were  preserved  so  carefully  his  teaching  on  some 
great  points  must  have  been  regarded  as  central.  Nor, 
if  we  succeed  in  forgetting  the  emphasis  introduced  by 
later  controversies,  is  it  hard  to  see  what  these  points 
were.  As  against  the  Jews,  Paul,  the  Greek,  insisted  on 
Freedom  from  the  Law.  That  stood.  As  against  the 
Greek,  Paul  insisted  on  Jewish  morality  and  on  the  Res- 

75 


Y6  Early  Christianity  V 

urrection  of  the  body.  These  also  stood.  And  these  three 
points,  if  we  may  judge  from  subapostolic  writings,  were 
those  which  influenced  the  Church  most,  'No  doubt  Paul 
preached  Jesus  as  the  crucified  but  risen  and  glorified 
Lord,  and  no  doubt  regarded  Baptism  and  the  Eucharist 
as  sacraments,  but  so  did  all  Hellenic  Christians.  Prob- 
ably he  would  have  regarded  his  doctrine  of  Faith  and 
Justification  as  of  primary  importance,  but  all  the  exist- 
ing evidence  seems  to  show  that  it  failed  to  convince  the 
Jews,  or  to  be  remembered  by  the  Gentiles,  until  it  was 
rediscovered  by  Augustine. 

Sacramental  Christianity  with  an  emphasis  on  morality 
was  henceforward  the  true  characteristic  of  the  Church. 
But  it  had  yet  to  give  a  more  detailed  account  of  the 
Lord,  and  to  attempt  to  come  to  terms  with  Greek 
philosophy. 

Except  with  regard  to  the  Second  Coming,  the  Jewish 
ideas  of  the  Davidic  Messiah  and  of  the  Son  of  Man 
ceased  to  have  any  living  importance.  It  was  not  doubted 
that  the  Lord  was  divine,  but  there  were  two  ways  of 
considering  his  divinity.  One  was  to  regard  Jesus  as  a 
man  who  had  been  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  had 
himself  been  taken  up  into  the  sphere  of  divinity  after 
his  death,  so  that  he,  as  well  as  the  spirit  which  had  been 
in  him,  was  now  divine.  This  form  of  thought  is  gen- 
erally known  as  Adoptionism.  The  other  way  was  to 
think  of  Jesus  as  a  pre-existent  divine  being  who  had 
become  human. 

The  difference  between  the  two  forms  of  thought  is 
that  whereas  Adoptionism  postulates  a  distinct  human 
personality  for  the  human  Jesus,  which  had  a  beginning 
in  time  and  was  promoted  to  divinity,  the  other  theory 
postulates  only  a  divine  person  who  became  human. 
Both  theories,  therefore,  begin  with  much  the  same  doc- 
trine of  God,  as  consisting,  if  the  metaphor  may  be  used, 
of  the  two  factors  of  the  Father  and  the  Spirit,  who  was 


V  Rome  and  Ephesus  77 

sometimes  called  his  Son,1  and  was  frequently  identified 
with  the  Logos  of  the  Greek  philosophers.  There  is  very 
little  evidence  in  early  Christian  writings  for  that  dis- 
tinction between  the  Logos  and  the  Spirit  which  after- 
ward became  orthodox. 

The  competing  existence  of  Adoptionist  and  Pre- 
existent  Christology  does  much  to  explain  the  early  devel- 
opment of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Starting  with  the 
Father  and  the  Spirit-son,  Adoptionism  added  a  third  to 
the  sphere  of  divinity,  namely,  the  glorified  Jesus.  .This 
belief  was  preserved  in  the  baptismal  formula  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  as  found  in  Justin  Martyr,  which  was 
"In  the  name  of  the  Father  of  all,  and  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  who  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  and 
in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  and  though  Adoptionism 
was  in  the  end  rejected,  it  left  its  permanent  mark  on 
Christian  theology  in  the  "threeness"  2  of  the  doctrine  of 
God.  The  doctrines  of  Pre-existent  Christology  could 
scarcely  have  had  this  result,3  for  it  is  quite  clear  that 
the  Logos  and  the  Spirit  were  distinguished  only  in  lan- 
guage, and  the  Incarnation  was,  as  it  were,  but  an  inci- 
dent in  the  work  of  the  Logos. 

Few  things  are  more  needed  than  study  of  this  side  of 
the  growth  of  Christian  doctrine.  Harnack's  History  of 
Doctrine  has  indeed  done  something,  but  many  of  the 
details  of  his  work  require  to  be  worked  out,  and  some 
of  his  statements  need  revision.4  Older  books,  such  as 
Corner's  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ, 

1  This  proves  that  this  form  of  thought  is  not  Semitic;  had  it  been 
so,  the  Spirit  would  scarcely  have  been  masculine. 

'It  would  be  unfair  and  misleading  to  say  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  That  doctrine  is  not  the  statement  of  the  "threeness"  of 
God,  but  of  the  relation  which  this  bears  to  his  unity. 

8  No  doubt  the  "threeness"  was  emphasized  by  the  habit  of  three 
immersions  in  baptism,  whatever  the  origin  of  this  practice  may 
be,  and  by  philosophic  reflections  as  to  the  properties  of  triangles 
such  as  are  found  in  Philo. 

*  Illuminating  suggestions  can  be  found  in  F.  C.  Conybeare's  The 
Key  of  Truth  and  in  H.  Usener's  Weihnachtsfest. 


78  Early  Christianity  V 

admirable  though  they  are,  have  little  value  for  this  pur- 
pose, for  they  were  written  chiefly  with  the  object  of 
explaining  and  leading  up  to  Nicene  and  Chalcedonian 
doctrine.  All  that  can  be  done  in  these  pages  is  to  indicate 
certain  lines,  which  might  be  profitably  followed  up,  as 
to  the  two  chief  centres  of  development,  Home  and  Ephe- 
sus,  the  former  representing  in  the  main  Adoptionism 
and  the  latter  Pre-existent  Christology. 

After  Antioch  Rome  seems  to  have  been  the  most  im- 
portant centre  of  Christianity  in  the  first  and  early  second 
centuries.  Certainly  it  was  more  important  than  Corinth, 
though  in  some  ways,  owing  to  the  preservation  of  Paul's 
correspondence,  we  know  more  about  Corinth  than  Rome. 
Fortunately  there  are  extant  a  number  of  documents 
which  illustrate  its  history,  though  none  of  them  throw 
any  real  light  on  its  foundation,  for  it  is  unknown  who 
was  the  founder  of  the  Church  in  Rome. 

The  first  of  these  documents  is  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  but  it  is  very  strange  how  little  this  tells  us  as 
to  the  history  or  nature  of  the  Church  in  that  city.  Appar- 
ently Paul  was  acquainted  with  Christians  in  Rome  before 
he  went  there  himself,  but  there  is  no  suggestion  that  he 
regarded  the  Church  there  as  the  foundation  of  Peter  or 
of  any  other  of  the  leading  missionaries.  It  is  therefore 
by  no  means  impossible  that  the  Church  of  Rome  sprang 
up  by  the  coming  to  the  city  in  increasing  numbers  of 
men  who  had  been  converted  elsewhere.  Whether  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  originally  intended  for  that 
city  or  not  is  an  open  question,1  but  at  least  it  was  sent  to 
Rome  in  one  of  its  forms,  and  that  is  after  all  the  most 

*In  the  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  pp.  335  ff.  (especially  p.  368), 
I  suggested  that  the  shorter  recension  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
the  existence  of  which  is  proved  by  the  evidence  of  the  Latin  breves, 
Tertullian,  Cyprian,  and  Marcion,  and  by  the  textual  confusion  sur- 
rounding the  final  doxology,  may  be  the  same  as  that  which  omits 
all  mention  of  Rome,  and  that,  if  so,  it  was  probably  written  orig- 
inally for  some  other  destination.  This  suggestion  has  met  with  little 
approbation  from  critics,  but  with  even  less  discussion.  I  still 
think  that  it  is  worth  consideration. 


V  Rome  and  Ephesus  79 

important  fact.  The  most  remarkable  thing  about  the 
revelation  which  it  makes  of  the  Christianity  at  Rome  is 
that  the  problems  which  seem  to  have  interested  or  dis- 
tracted the  Church  are  so  much  more  Jewish  than  Hellenic. 
The  questions  of  the  Law  and  of  the  ultimate  fate  of 
Israel  are  so  extensively  dealt  with  as  to  suggest  a  strongly 
Jewish  element  in  the  Church.  Jesus  is,  as  in  Corinth, 
a  Redeemer,  but  the  problems  of  life  for  those  who 
accepted  him  suggest  Jewish  rather  than  Greek  ante- 
cedents. 

What  is  the  bearing  of  Romans  on  the  Christology  of 
the  Church  at  Rome?  Not,  that  is  to  say,  what  is  its 
evidence  as  to  the  thought  of  Paul,  but  how  are  certain 
phrases  in  it  likely  to  have  been  interpreted?  The  most 
important  passage  is  Romans  i.  1-4:  "Paul,  a  servant  of 
Jesus  Christ,  a  called  apostle,  separated  to  God's  gospel 
which  He  had  promised  beforehand  by  His  prophets  in 
Holy  Scriptures  concerning  His  Son,  who  became  of  the 
seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh,  who  was  appointed 
Son  of  God  miraculously  according  to  the  spirit  of  holi- 
ness by  resurrection  from  the  dead,  Jesus  Christ,  our 
Lord."  1  What  is  this  likely  to  have  meant  to  those  who 
read  it  in  Greek  without  any  knowledge  of  a  "Pre- 
existent"  Christology  ?  I  think  that  they  would  have  been 
impressed  by  the  parallelisms  in  the  sentence :  /card  aapua 
is  parallel  to  Kara  irvevjJLa  a'yiwffvvrjs  and  CK  o-Trep/zaros  AauetS 
is  parallel  to  «£  avaaracrews  venpuv.  It  would  thus  mean  that 
Jesus  had  been  a  human  being  by  belonging  to  the  family 
of  David,  and  had  been  ordained,  or  appointed  to  be  a 
"Spirit  of  holiness,"  by  being  raised  from  the  dead: 
/card  aapKa  explains  the  result  of  ^^vo^kvov  eK  (nrepnaros 
Aaveld,  and  Kara  Trvev^a  ajLajffvvrjs  explains  the  result  of 
6pi<r0€j>ros  vlov  .  .  .  e£  d*>  a  ordered  veKpuv.  That  is  Adop- 

1  IlaDXos  SoDXos  'Iij<roi>  Xpicrrou  KXrjrds  &iro<TTo\os  d^copw/xepos'els  ebayytXiov 
6fov  6  TrpotirijyyelXaTO dia  TUV  irpo^rjTiav  CLVTOU  kv  ypa^als  ayiats  wepi  TOO  vloj 
avrou  TOV  yevopevov  e/c  ffTrepnaros  AauetS  Kara  <rapna.  TOII  6pi<rdei>TOs  vlou  6eo~j  kv 
/card  wvevfjia  ayu>xrvi>r]S  e£  dpcwTacreuJS  vdcpw  'lijaov  Xpurrov  TOV  Kvplov 


80  Early  Christianity  V 

tionism,  and  though  the  passage  has  been  explained  in 
terms  of  a  pre-existent  Christology  by  those  who  for  other 
reasons  are  convinced  that  this  was  the  real  nature  of 
Paul's  doctrine,  it  could  be  taken  quite  easily  in  this 
Adoptionist  way,  for  bpiaQkvTos  could  mean  "became  by 
means  of  appointment'7  quite  as  well  as  d^copto-^e^os  could 
mean  the  same  thing  with  regard  to  Paul's  apostleship.1 
The  general  impression  made  by  the  verse  would  be,  to 
any  one  who  had  Adoptionist  views  already,  that  Jesus, 
who  was  born  as  a  human  being  into  the  family  of  David 
(which  gave  him  a  certain  well-understood  claim  to  the 
title  Son  of  God),  had  by  the  Resurrection  been  promoted 
to  another  kind  of  sonship,  not  as  a  human  being  of  flesh, 
but  as  a  spiritual  being. 

The  next  document  in  probable  chronological  order 
which  seems  to  belong  to  Rome  is  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  It  is  much  disputed  by  critics  whether  it  was 
written  in  Rome  or  to  Rome,  but  that  it  was  extant  there 
can  hardly  be  doubted  in  view  of  the  extensive  quotations 
from  it  in  the  Epistle  of  Clement.  It  reveals  a  different 
mind  from  that  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  but  once 
more  it  is  Jewish  questions  which  are  uppermost.  The 
main  problem  is  the  meaning  of  the  ritual  law.  Never- 
theless, as  in  Romans,  there  are  sufficient  traces  of  sacra- 
mental teaching  to  make  it  clear  that  Christianity  in 
Rome  as  in  Corinth  meant  the  sacramental  cult  of  a  saving 
Lord.  This  was  the  basis  of  everything,  but  the  problems 
which  arose  from  the  attempt  to  work  out  its  implications 
are  as  markedly  Jewish  in  Rome  as  they  are  Greek  in 
Corinth.  It  does  not  mean,  of  course,  that  there  were 
no  Greeks  in  Rome,  any  more  than  that  there  were  no 
Jews  in  Corinth,  but  the  dominating  influence  was  Jew- 
ish in  one  and  Greek  in  the  other. 

1  The  justification  for  assuming  that  the  Church  at  Rome  probably 
had  Adoptionist  proclivities  is  the  undeniable  fact  that  early  in  the 
second  century  Hernias  held  this  view,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that 
he  was  an  innovator. 


V  Rome  and  Epkesus  81 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  seems  at  first  to  be  much 
more  obviously  "Pre-existent"  in  its  Christology  than  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  indeed  it  could  well  be  explained 
on  the  theory  that  it  was  maintaining  a  Pre-existent 
Christology  against  a  rival  form  of  the  same  general  type 
which  identified  the  pre-existent  Christ  with  an  angel. 
But  if  one  ask  whether  this  would  have  been  clear  to  a 
reader  with  Adoptionist  principles,  it  can  be  seen  that  he 
would  very  easily  have  interpreted  it  in  accordance  with 
his  ow3.  ideas.  The  question  of  what  the  Son  of  God  was 
before  the  Incarnation  is  not  the  centre  of  the  discussion. 
What  is  important  is  the  function  of  High  Priest  in 
Heaven  which  he  now  fulfils,  and  this  function  is  the  con- 
sequence of  his  human  life.  It  is  true  that  in  the  first 
chapter  there  are  phrases  which  are  most  naturally  ex- 
plained by  "pre-existent"  doctrine,  but  though  the  writer 
appears  to  be  explaining  the  essential  superiority  of  the 
Son  to  angels,  in  chapter  ii.  this  superiority  is  the  result 
of  the  Passion  and  Resurrection,  and  in  verse  10  the 
divine  being,  "through  whom  and  for  whom  are  all 
things,"  is  distinguished  from  the  leader  of  our  salvation, 
who  is,  of  course,  Jesus.1  It  is  plain  that  this  verse, 
difficult  to  understand  on  other  lines  of  thought,  is  quite 
intelligible  if  it  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  that 
Adoptionism  which,  as  we  know  from  Hennas,  used  "Son 
of  God"  for  the  Holy  Spirit  and  also  for  the  glorified 
Jesus. 

It  is  very  hard  not  to  discuss  this  question  as  though 
Adoptionism  and  Pre-existent  Christology  were  con- 
sciously competing  systems  from  the  beginning.  That  is 
of  course  not  true :  none  of  these  writers  was  consciously 
discussing  the  question.  For  this  reason  elements  can  be 

1  "'Eirpeirei'  yap  abr$  5t'  ov  TO.  Travra  nat  Si' .ov  T&  iravra  xoXXous  vloiis  els 
do£av  ayaydvTa  rbv  apxnyov  TTJS  <rwr?7ptas  O&T&V  dia  TraOrjiJL&Tuiv  TeAeta;<rai. 
The  English  translators  take  &yay6vTa  as  referring  to  the  same  per- 
son as  a6r£,  but  it  seems  grammatically  preferable  to  construe  it  as 
a  qualification  of 


82  Early  Christianity  V 

found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hehrews  which  are  easily  susceptible  of  an  Adoption- 
ist  interpretation,  and  others  equally  indicative  of  Pre- 
existent  Christology.  This  means  that  Christians  at  that 
moment  had  not  formulated  the  problem.  But  The 
Shepherd  of  Hennas  shows  that  in  Rome  an  important 
body  of  Christians  did  become  wholly  Adoptionist,  and 
if  they  used  Romans  and  Hebrews,  they  probably  in- 
terpreted the  passages  indicated  above  in  agreement  with 
their  own  opinions  and  passed  over  the  rest — in  accord- 
ance with  the  best  tradition  of  Biblical  commentators. 

A  third  document  is  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter.  If 
this  were  really  written  by  Peter  it  cannot  be  much  later 
in  date  than  Romans,  and  would  probably  be  earlier  than 
Hebrews,  but  it  seems  increasingly  clear  that  the  Epistle 
refers  to  a  later  period,  and  cannot  be  the  work  of  the 
Apostle.  It  is  concerned  in  the  main  with  the  problem 
of  persecution,  and  though  the  matter  is  extremely  obscure, 
on  the  whole  a  date  early  in  the  second  century  in  the 
time  of  Trajan  and  Pliny  seems  the  most  likely.  Whether 
the  indications  that  it  comes  from  Rome  are  not  part  of 
the  fiction  of  its  authorship  is  at  least  open  to  question, 
but  the  point  is  not  very  important.  If  it  be  really  Roman 
it  shows  traces  of  a  further  development  of  sacramental 
Christianity,  but  does  not  throw  much  light  on  its  details. 
It  has  some  similarity  in  language  to  Romans,  but  very 
little  in  the  picture  presented  of  Christianity.  The  central 
point  in  it  is  the  emphasis  on  baptismal  regeneration, 
which  gives  Christians  the  certainty  of  immortality.  The 
eschatological  expectation  of  the  "revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ"  is  strongly  marked,  but  there  is  no  emphasis  on 
the  hope  of  resurrection.  On  one  point,  however,  there 
is  a  close  resemblance  to  Paul.  Spirit  and  flesh  are  con- 
trasted, and  it  is  clearly  implied  that  after  death  the 
Christian,  like  the  Christ,  is  spirit  and  not  flesh.  It 
throws  little  light  on  the  question  of  Adoptionism,  for 
though  there  is  nothing  in  it  which  contradicts  Pre-exist- 


V  Rome  and  Ephesus  83 

ent  Christology,  there  is  also  nothing  in  it  which  would 
have  startled  an  Adoptionist, 

After  this  *  comes  the  first  Epistle  of  Clement,  a  letter 
sent  by  the  Church  of  Rome  to  the  Church  at  Corinth. 
It  is  generally  dated  at  the  end  of  the  first  century,  but 
there  is  really  very  little  evidence,  and  it  is  curious  that 
this  date  should  be  accepted  with  so  little  hesitation  by 
almost  all  critics.  It  is  in  the  main  an  ethical  treatise, 
more  especially  on  the  importance  of  good  order  in  the 
community.  This  teaching  is  based  almost  exclusively  on 
the  Old  Testament. 

There  is  very  little  in  1  Clement  which  throws  any 
light  on  Christology  or  on  sacraments.  For  the  history 
of  doctrine,  in  fact,  1  Clement  is,  considering  its  length, 
a  remarkably  disappointing  document,  but  two  passages 
are  important.  In  1  Clement  xlii.,  "The  Apostles  received 
the  Gospel  for  us  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Jesus  the 
Christ  was  sent  from  God,"  there  is  a  clear  statement  of 
the  supernatural  claims  of  the  apostles,  but  made  in  such 
a  way  as  to  imply  a  lower  view  of  Christ  than  £Ticene 
orthodoxy:  he  is  the  middle  term  between  God  and  the 
apostles,  and  is  separated  from  the  one  as  clearly  as  from 
the  other.  The  "Lord"  is  more  than  man,  but  is  not  God. 
The  excellence  of  the  Lord  is  also  expressed  in  1  Clement 
xxxvi.,  in  words  reminiscent  of  Hebrews.  "This  is  the 
way"  (i.e.  the  way  referred  to  in  Psalms  1.  23,  "The 
sacrifice  of  praise  shall  glorify  me,  and  therein  is  a  way 
in  which  I  will  show  him  the  salvation  of  God")  "beloved, 
in  which  we  found  our  salvation,  Jesus  Christ,  the  high 
priest  of  our  offerings,  the  defender  and  helper  of  our 

1  Though,  if  the  late  date  for  1  Peter  be  accepted,  1  Clement  is  the 
earlier  document.  But  the  chronology  of  1  Clement  seems  to  me 
less  certain  than  it  is  usually  held  to  be.  It  depends  on  two  factors, 
both  doubtful:  (1)  the  chronology  of  the  list  of  Roman  bishops 
in  Eusebius  and  in  the  Liber  Pontificalia;  (2)  the  supposed  refer- 
ence in  the  epistle  to  the  alleged  persecution  under  Domitian. 
Against  these  is  the  reference  to  Clement  in  The  Shepherd  of 
Hernias,  and  the  apparently  clear  testimony  of  the  Canon  of  Mura- 
tori  that  The  Shepherd  was  written  about  A.D.  140. 


84  Early  Christianity  V 

weakness.  Through  him  we  fix  our  gaze  on  the  heights 
of  heaven,  through  him  we  see  the  reflection  of  his  fault- 
less and  lofty  countenance,  through  him  the  eyes  of  our 
hearts  were  opened,  through  him  our  foolish  and  darkened 
understanding  blossoms  toward  the  light,  through  him  the 
Master  (i.e.  God)  willed  that  we  should  taste  the  immortal 
knowledge,  'who  being  the  brightness  of  his  majesty  is 
by  so  much  greater  than  angels,  as  he  hath  inherited  a 
more  excellent  name.'  For  it  is  written  that  'Who  maketh 
his  angels  spirits,  and  his  ministers  a  flame  of  fire.7  But 
of  his  son  the  Master  said  thus,  'Thou  art  my  Son,  to-day 
have  I  begotten  thee;  ask  of  me  and  I  will  give  thee  the 
heathen  for  thine  inheritance.' '  The  resemblance  to 
Hebrews  is  obvious,  but  throws  less  light  than  might  be 
expected  on  Clement's  Christology.  What  did  he  think 
was  the  meaning  of  "To-day  have  I  begotten  thee"  ?  The 
one  point  which  comes  out  clearly  is  that  the  Church  was 
regarded  as  an  institution  for  the  securing  of  the  salva- 
tion offered  by  the  death  of  Christ.  It  has  a  divine 
authority,  for  just  as  Christ  came  from  God,  so  the 
Apostles  came  from  Christ.  It  may  almost  be  said  that 
the  Epistle  has  a  high  Ecclesiology  but  an  undeveloped 
Christology. 

Thus  the  Christianity  revealed  by  1  Clement  suggests 
a  Church  which  had  accepted  Jewish  ethics  and  a  Jewish 
hope  for  resurrection,  and  regarded  Jesus  as  the  divine 
messenger  of  God,  who  in  turn  had  appointed  the  Apostles 
as  the  foundation  of  the  Church.  It  is  a  very  simple  form 
of  cult,  and  in  the  prayer  which  Clement  quotes  almost 
everything  is  directed  towards  the  Father.  It  is  Hellen- 
ised  Judaism  without  the  ceremonial  law,  but  with  a  be- 
lief in  Jesus  and  the  Church. 

The  next  document  concerned  with  the  Church  of  Rome 
is  in  many  ways  the  most  important.  The  8hepherd  of 
Hermas  is  not  an  easy  book  to  appreciate  at  first.  It 
is  a  series  of  interviews  between  Hermas  and  various 
supernatural  beings  who  give  him  good  advice.  It  may 


V  Rome  and  Ephesus  85 

be  as  late  as  140,  but  many  think  that  it  is  earlier.  The 
book  was  written  with  the  practical  purpose  of  guiding 
rightly  the  Christians  in  Rome.  There  is  nothing  in 
Hennas  which  really  contradicts  anything  in  1  Clement, 
but  it  supplements  it  in  several  directions.  In  the  first 
place,  like  Clement,  it  attaches  great  importance  to  the 
Church.  No  salvation  is  possible  except  in  the  Church, 
and  those  who  are  and  remain  in  it  secure  eternal  life,  or, 
in  the  phrase  of  Hennas  himself,  "live  to  God."  The 
only  point  on  which  Hermas  is  really  different  is  that  he 
seems  to  have  nothing  to  say  about  a  resurrection,  and 
apparently  was  content  with  immortality.  But  this  may 
be  merely  an  accident  and  cannot  be  pressed. 

The  book  throws  great  light  on  the  development  of 
thought  and  practice  in  Rome,  and  its  Christology  is  the 
most  instructive  example  which  we  possess  of  early 
Adoptionism. 

The  evidence  is  so  important,  and  Hermas  is  in  general 
so  little  studied,  that  the  main  passage  (Sim.  v.  2.  1  if.) 
may  be  quoted :  "Listen  to  the  Parable  which  I  am  going 
to  tell  you  concerning  Fasting.  A  certain  man  had  a 
field,  and  many  servants,  and  on  part  of  the  field  he 
planted  a  vineyard.  And  he  chose  out  a  certain  servant, 
who  was  faithful,  in  good  esteem  and  honour  with  him, 
and  he  called  him  and  said  to  him:  Take  this  vineyard 
which  I  have  planted,  and  fence  it  until  I  come,  and  do 
nothing  more  to  the  vineyard.  And  follow  this  order  of 
mine  and  you  shall  have  your  freedom  from  me.  And  the 
master  of  the  servant  went  abroad.  Now  when  he  had 
gone  the  servant  took  and  fenced  the  vineyard,  and  when 
he  had  finished  the  fencing  of  the  vineyard  he  saw  that 
the  vineyard  was  full  of  weeds.  Therefore  he  reasoned  in 
himself,  saying:  I  have  finished  this  order  of  the  Lord;- 
I  will  next  dig  this  vineyard,  and  it  will  be  better  when 
it  is  dug,  and  having  no  weeds  will  yield  more  fruit,  not 
being  choked  by  the  weeds.  He  took  and  dug  the  vine- 
yard, and  pulled  out  all  the  weeds  which  were  in  the 


86  Early  Christianity  V 

vineyard.  And  that  vineyard  became  very  beautiful  and 
fertile  with  no  weeds  to  choke  it  After  a  time  the  master 
of  the  servant  and  the  field  came,  and  entered  into  the 
vineyard,  and  seeing  the  vineyard  beautifully  fenced,  and 
moreover,  dug,  and  all  the  weeds  pulled  up  and  vines 
fertile,  he  was  greatly  pleased  at  the  acts  of  the  servant. 
So  he  called  his  beloved  son,  whom  he  had  as  heir,  and 
his  friends  whom  he  had  as  counsellors,  and  told  them 
what  he  had  ordered  his  servant,  and  what  he  had  found 
accomplished.  And  they  congratulated  the  servant  on 
the  character  which  the  master  gave  him.  And  he  said 
to  them :  'I  promised  this  servant  his  freedom  if  he  kept 
the  orders  which  I  gave  him.  Now  he  has  kept  my  orders, 
and  has  added  good  work  in  the  vineyard,  and  greatly 
pleased  me.  So  in  reward  for  this  work  which  he  has 
done  I  wish  to  make  him  joint-heir  with  my  son,  because, 
when  he  had  a  good  thought  he  did  not  put  it  on  one  side, 
but  carried  it  out.  The  son  of  the  master  agreed  with 
this  plan,  that  the  servant  should  be  joint-heir  with  the 
son.  After  a  few  days  he  made  a  feast  and  sent  to  him 
much  food  from  the  feast.  But  the  servant  took  the  food 
which  was  sent  to  him  by  the  master,  kept  what  was 
sufficient  for  himself,  and  distributed  the  rest  to  his  fel- 
low-servants. And  his  fellow-servants  were  glad  when 
they  received  the  food,  and  began  to  pray  for  him,  that 
he  might  find  greater  favour  with  his  master,  because  he 
had  treated  them  thus.  His  master  heard  of  all  these 
doings,  and  again  rejoiced  greatly  at  his  conduct.  The 
master  again  assembled  his  friends  and  his  son,  and  re- 
ported to  them  what  he  had  done  with  the  food  which 
he  had  received,  and  they  were  still  more  pleased  that  the 
servant  should  be  made  joint-heir  with  his  son." 

A  little  later  on  the  angel  explains  this  passage.  There 
is  first  a  confused  discussion  as  to  the  work  of  the  Son, 
and  it  is  not  easy  to  be  sure  whether  the  reference  is  to 
the  Holy  Spirit  or  to  Jesus,  but  finally  the  following  clear 
statement  is  given :  "The  Holy  Spirit  which  is  pre-existent, 


V  Rome  and  Ephesus  87 

which  created  all  creation,  did  God  make  to  dwell  in  the 
flesh  which  he  willed.  Therefore  this  flesh,  in  which  the 
Holy  Spirit  dwelled,  served  the  Spirit  well,  walking  in 
holiness  and  purity,  and  did  not  in  any  way  defile  the 
spirit.  When,  therefore,  it  had  lived  nobly  and  purely, 
and  had  laboured  with  the  Spirit,  and  worked  with  it  in 
every  deed,  behaving  with  power  and  bravery,  he  chose 
it  as  companion  with  the  Holy  Spirit ;  for  the  conduct  of 
this  flesh  pleased  him,  because  it  was  not  defiled  while  it 
was  bearing  the  Holy  Spirit  on  earth.  Therefore  he  took 
the  Son  1  and  the  glorious  angels  as  counsellors,  that  this 
flesh  also,  having  served  the  Spirit  blamelessly,  should 
have  some  place  of  sojourn,  and  not  seem  to  have  lost 
the  reward  of  its  service.  For  all  flesh  in  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  dwelt  shall  receive  the  reward  if  it  be  found 
undefiled  and  spotless.  You  have  the  explanation  of  this 
parable  also." 

These  passages  clearly  represent  God  as  having  a  Son 
who  is  the  pre-existent  Spirit.  This  Spirit  is  sent  into 
human  beings  but  leaves  them  if  they  are  guilty  of  any 
misconduct.  In  the  case  of  one  man,  however,  who  is  not 
named  but  is  obviously  intended  to  be  Jesus,  the  Spirit 
found  complete  obedience.  The  result  was  that  the  Father 
proposed  to  the  Son,  that  is  the  Spirit,  and  to  the  coun- 
sellors, that  is  the  angels,  that  this  human  being  or  flesh 
as  Hennas  calls  it,  should  be  exalted  and  glorified  and 
put  on  an  equality  with  the  Son.  This  was  done,  and  the 
implication  of  the  book  is  that  the  same  opportunity  is 
offered  to  all  others  who  are  willing  to  follow  their  Lord. 
It  is  interesting  to  notice  that,  though  it  would  be  an 
abuse  of  language,  it  might  be  said  that  Hermas  has  a 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  that  his  Trinity  does  not 

*Cf.  Sim.  ix.  1:  "For  that  Spirit  is  the  Son  of  God,"  and  the 
Latin  (Vulgate)  text  of  Sim.  v.  5.  1,  which  adds  to  the  explanation 
of  the  Parable  the  exact  statement,  "Now  the  Son  is  the  Holy 
Spirit."  It  is  uncertain  whether  this  is  the  true  text  or  merely 
correct  explanation,  but  in  general  the  Latin  text  is  better  than 
that  of  the  Athos  MS., — the  only  Greek  evidence  at  this  point. 


88  Early  Christianity  V 

consist  of  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  but  of  Father,  pre- 
existent  Son,  that  is  the  Spirit,  and  adopted  Son,  that  is 
Jesus.  The  exact  details,  however,  of  the  relations  sub- 
sisting between  those  three  is  a  question  more  easily  asked 
than  answered,  and  the  next  investigator  of  Hennas  will 
have  to  consider  it  very  carefully.  It  is  at  present  only 
possible  to  define  the  problem.  As  was  said  above,  Hernias 
seems  to  imply  that  the  Spirit  existed  from  the  beginning 
alongside  of  the  Father,  but  he  also  implies  the  existence 
of  many  other  good  spirits  opposed  to  the  army  of  demons 
who  people  the  world.  These  good  spirits  seem  at  times 
to  be  identified  with  angels,  and  the  question  will  have 
some  day  to  be  discussed  afresh  of  the  relation  of  these 
spirits  to  the  Spirit  who  is  the  Son  of  God  and  of  both 
to  the  angels.  Moreover,  the  question  cannot  be  solved 
without  taking  into  account  the  composition  of  Hennas. 
Closely  connected  with  this  problem  is  that  of  the  identifi- 
cation of  the  Son  of  God  with  an  angel  who  is  sometimes 
described  as  "the  most  glorious  angel"  and  sometimes 
named  as  Michael.  Did  Hennas  think  that  the  Spirit 
who  was  the  Son  is  identical  with  Michael,  or  that  Jesus 
became  Michael,  or  in  what  way  are  the  facts  to  be  ex- 
plained ?  Finally,  did  Hennas  think  that  Christians  be- 
came angels  at  their  death  ? l 

On  what  book  did  Hennas  base  his  interpretation  of 
Jesus  ?  There  is  no  proof  that  he  made  use  of  any  of  our 
existing  gospels,  just  as  it  is  very  doubtful  whether 
1  Clement  was  acquainted  with  any  of  them. 

There  is,  indeed,  in  1  Clement  one  passage  referring  to 
the  words  of  Jesus,2  but  it  cannot  be  said  that  this  is  a 

1  See  Appendix  on  pp.  104  ff. 

3  "Especially  remembering  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus  which  he 
spoke  when  he  was  teaching  gentleness  and  long-suffering.  For  he 
spoke  thus:  'Be  merciful,  that  ye  may  obtain  mercy.  Forgive,  that 
ye  may  be  forgiven.  As  ye  do,  so  shall  it  be  done  unto  you.  As  ye 
give,  so  shall  it  be  given  unto  you.  As  ye  judge,  so  shall  ye  be 
judged.  As  ye  are  kind,  so  shall  kindness  be  shewn  you.  With  what 
measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you.' " 


V  Rome  and  Ephesus  89 

quotation  either  from  Matthew  or  Luke.  It  has  points  of 
similarity  to  both,  but  agrees  completely  with  neither, 
No  theory  to  explain  the  facts  is  convincing,  for  three 
are  possible.  It  may  be  a  confused  reminiscence  of  the 
existing  Gospels,  or  it  may  be  the  proof  that  a  harmony 
was  already  in  existence,  or  it  may  be  drawn  from  a  docu- 
ment which  was  used  by  both  Matthew  and  Luke — in  other 
words,  the  Q  of  the  critics.  Different  minds  will  see  dif- 
ferent grades  of  probability  in  these  three  hypotheses. 
But  there  is  no  evidence  to  settle  the  question. 

There  is  no  satisfactory  proof  that  the  canonical  gospels 
were  known  in  the  Church  of  Rome  until  the  time  of 
Justin  Martyr.  If,  however,  the  question  be  discussed 
not  on  the  basis  of  what  gospel  is  quoted  by  Hennas  or 
Clement,  for  none  of  them  are  by  either,  but  merely  on 
the  ground  of  their  doctrinal  affinities,  the  gospel  of  Mark 
has  the  best  claim  to  consideration.  According  to  the 
other  gospels  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God  from  his  birth, 
but,  though  Mark  could  be  otherwise  interpreted,  the  most 
obvious  meaning  of  the  gospel  as  it  stands  is  that  Jesus 
became  Son  of  God  at  the  baptism  when  the  Spirit  de- 
scended upon  him.  It  can  hardly  be  merely  a  coincidence 
that  this  gospel  is  actually  attributed  by  tradition  *  to  a 
Church  which  was  at  first  adoptionist. 

Sacramental  adoptionist  Christianity  seems  to  be  the 
nearest  approach  to  a  complete  transformation  to  a  mys- 
tery religion  with  no  philosophy,  which  is  found  in  the 
history  of  Christianity,  but  even  here  the  basis  is  Jewish. 

This  is  plain  in  its  treatment  of  conduct.  It  had  ap- 
parently accepted  the  sacramental  remission  of  sins  in 
baptism,  and  there  is  no  trace  in  this  of  any  allusion  to 
original  sin;  the  sins  which  are  remitted  had  been  com- 
mitted by  the  Christian  before  his  baptism,  and  there  is 
no  suggestion  of  any  inheritance  of  sin.  Hermas  never 

1  There  is  no  entirely  convincing  evidence  in  favour  of  this  tra- 
dition. See,  however,  B.  W.  Bacon,  "The  Roman  Origin  of  the  Gospel 
of  Mark,"  in  Harvard  Theological  Studies,  vii. 


90  Early  Christianity  V 

contemplated  infant  baptism.  The  baptized  Christian 
started  with  a  clean  slate,  but  what  would  happen  to  him 
if  he  lapsed  again  into  sin  ?  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
clearly  thought  that  he  had  no  hope  of  further  forgiveness, 
and  Hernias  refers  very  plainly,  if  not  to  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  itself,  at  least  to  teaching  which  it  represents. 
This  teaching  was,  of  course,  calculated  either  to  main- 
tain a  high  standard  of  conduct  or  else  to  change  the  defi- 
nition of  sin.  Apparently  none  of  the  other  mystery  re- 
ligions ever  attached  this  importance  to  conduct  after 
initiation,  but  human  nature  presented  some  difficulties  in 
the  enforcement  of  the  Christian  theory.  It  was  found 
that  the  baptized  frequently,  if  not  always,  lapsed  into 
sin,  and  that  the  situation  complained  of  by  4  Ezra  was 
repeating  itself.1  What  was  the  use  of  a  system  which 
offered  men  immortality,  but  only  on  conditions  which  no 
one  could  fulfil? 

Hennas  solved  the  problem  by  having  recourse  to  an- 
other element  in  Jewish  thought.  He  appealed  to  the 
possibility  of  repentance,  and  put  his  solution  of  the 
problem  into  the  form  of  a  revelation  made  to  him  by  an 

a"I  answered  then  and  said,  This  is  my  first  and  last  saying, 
that  it  had  been  better  not  to  have  given  the  earth  unto  Adam:  or 
else  when  it  was  given  him,  to  have  restrained  him  from  sinning. 
For  what  profit  is  it  for  men  now  in  this  present  time  to  live  in 
heaviness,  and  after  death  to  look  for  punishment?  O  thou  Adam, 
what  hast  thou  done?  for  though  it  was  thou  that  sinned,  thou  art 
not  fallen  alone,  but  we  all  that  come  of  thee.  For  what  profit  is  it 
unto  us,  if  there  be  promised  us  an  immortal  time,  whereas  we  have 
done  the  works  that  bring  death?  And  that  there  is  promised  us  an 
everlasting  hope,  whereas  ourselves  being  most  wicked  are  made 
vain?  And  that  there  are  laid  up  for  us  dwellings  of  health  and 
safety,  whereas  we  have  lived  wickedly?  And  that  the  glory  of  the 
Most  High  is  kept  to  defend  them  which  have  led  a  wary  life, 
whereas  we  have  walked  in  the  most  wicked  ways  of  all?  And  that 
there  should  be  shewed  a  paradise  whose  fruit  endureth  for  ever, 
wherein  is  security  and  medicine,  since  we  shall  not  enter ^into  it? 
For  we  have  walked  in  unpleasant  places.  And  that  the  faces  of 
them  which  have  used  abstinence  shall  shine  above  the  stars,  whereas 
our  faces  shall  be  blacker  than  darkness?  For  while  we  lived  and 
committed  iniquity,  we  considered  not  that  we  should  begin  to  suffer 
for  it  after  death"  (4  Ezra  vii.  46-56). 


V  Rome  and  Epliesus  91 

angel — the  Shepherd  of  the  book.  The  revelation  which 
Hennas  announces  is  that  there  is  one  repentance,  but 
only  one,  for  those  who  sin  after  baptism.  If  repentance 
is  taken  merely  as  an  act  of  contrition  this  obviously  does 
little  to  solve  the  problem:  it  is  not  really  sufficient  to 
cover  the  facts  of  human  nature.  But  for  Hennas  re- 
pentance is  much  more  than  contrition.  It  consists  ap- 
parently of  cheerful  submission  to  all  the  unpleasant 
happenings  of  life,  which  are  regarded  as  organised  by 
an  angel,  specially  appointed  for  the  purpose,  in  order 
to  adapt  them  to  the  improvement  of  sinners.  From  the 
general  characteristic  of  the  parables  it  is  clear  that 
Hennas  did  not  contemplate  the  immediate  restoration 
of  the  penitent,  or  the  immediate  elimination  of  sin. 
Penitence  is  for  him  an  unpleasant  process  of  education, 
and  I  think  he  contemplates  the  probability  that  it  is  life- 
long. Like  all  education  it  demands  that  the  pupil  shall 
obey  his  teacher,  and  the  teacher  is  in  this  case  the  angel 
of  repentance,  who  arranges  life  so  as  to  make  it  educa- 
tive. It  is  the  beginning  of  the  great  Catholic  system  of 
penance  which  it  is  so  difficult  to  estimate  at  its  full  value 
because  of  its  corruption  and  exploitation  in  the  Middle 
Ages.  Whether  one  believes  in  the  existence  of  an  angel 
of  repentance  or  not,  the  view  that  life  with  all  its  hap- 
penings is  an  education,  which  gradually  teaches  men,  if 
they  are  willing  to  accept  it,  how  to  cease  to  be  sinful, 
was  a  great  lesson  for  the  second  century,  and  I  do  not 
doubt  that  it  had  much  to  do  with  producing  in  the  next 
century  a  Church  which,  in  spite  of  persecution,  ulti- 
mately won  the  assent  of  the  best  part  of  the  Roman  world. 
Though  the  form  in  which  Hermas  presented  his  teach- 
ing was  mythological  and  crude  it  contained  truths  which 
cannot  be  neglected. 

No  one  can  read  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas  without 
feeling  that  it  has  not  been  adequately  discussed  by  mod- 
ern scholarship.  It  is  the  key  to  the  proper  understanding 
of  Roman  Christianity  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  cen- 


92  Early  Christianity  V 

tury,  but  to  use  this  key  properly  it  must  be  subjected  to 
a  process  of  criticism  to  determine  the  relations  of  its 
constituent  parts  to  one  another,  and  to  the  contemporary 
or  almost  contemporary  documents — 1  Clement  and  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Adoptionist  Christianity  was  not  destined  to  conquer 
the  world,  and  though  Koman  Christianity  proved  to  be 
the  surviving  form  it  had  first  to  change  much  of  its 
character  in  a  manner  which  can  with  some  degree  of 
picturesque  exaggeration  be  described  as  conquest  by 
Ephesus. 

The  early  development  of  Christianity  in  Ephesus  is 
more  obscure  than  it  is  in  Rome;  it  ceased  quite  soon  to 
flourish  in  its  place  of  origin,  but  lived  on  elsewhere. 
The  documents  which  represent  the  first  stages  of  its 
growth  are  the  later  Pauline  epistles,  and  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  They  are  inextricably  involved  in  critical  ques- 
tions which  have  as  yet  received  less  attention  than  the 
synoptic  problem. 

This  is  especially  true  of  the  later  epistles.  In  them, 
as  distinct  from  the  earlier  epistles,  we  have  a  cosmical 
Christology  which  regards  Christ  as  a  pre-existent  divine 
person  who  became  a  human  being.  Of  that  there  is  no 
doubt,  nor  can  it  be  disputed  that  there  are  one  or  two 
passages  in  the  earlier  epistles  which  seem  to  pave  the 
way  for  this  kind  of  thought ;  but  these  passages  are  very 
few,  and  as  it  were  wholly  incidental.  Thus  the  critical 
question  arises  whether  these  later  epistles  were  written 
by  the  same  person  as  the  author  of  the  earlier  ones.  The 
point  has  never  been  discussed  fully  in  England,  and  by 
but  a  very  few  scholars  on  the  Continent.  The  result  is 
that  it  is  only  possible  at  present  to  say  that  three  solu- 
tions are  possible  and  are  awaiting  discussion.  The  first 
is  that  Paul's  thought  moved  very  rapidly  in  the  last  years 
of  his  life,  and  that  the  difference  between  the  earlier  and 
the  later  epistles  only  represents  the  development  of  his 


V  Rome  and  Ephesus  93 

thought.  This  is  certainly  a  possible  solution.  There  is 
no  literary  objection  to  it  which  cannot  adequately  be 
answered.  The  only  doubt  is  the  psychological  question 
whether  the  development  implied  is  not  so  great  as  to  be 
improbable.  A  second  possibility  is  that  the  later  epistles 
are  not  Pauline  but  are  the  work  of  some  of  Paul's  fol- 
lowers. This  is  also  possible,  and  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  scarcely  admits  of  proof  or  of  refutation.  The  third 
possibility  was  suggested  in  1877  by  H.  J.  Holtzmann, 
who  thought  that  Ephesians  represents  the  work  of  the 
second  generation,  and  that  Colossians  was  a  genuine 
epistle  interpolated  by  the  author  of  Ephesians.  It  is 
said  sometimes  that  this  is  an  incredibly  complicated 
hypothesis.  Undoubtedly  it  is  complicated,  but  so  are 
the  facts,  and  those  who  regard  it  as  incredible  forget 
that  it  is  merely  the  application  to  the  Pauline  epistles 
of  exactly  the  same  process  as  every  one  knows  to  have 
been  suffered  by  the  epistles  of  Ignatius.  Therefore  this 
theory  also  is  perfectly  possible,  and  ultimately,  unless 
the  interest  in  critical  questions  dies  out  altogether,  the 
discussion  of  these  three  possibilities  is  certain  to  receive 
fresh  attention.1 

The  critical  questions  concerned  with  the  Fourth  Gospel 
are  better  known.  But  whether  it  is  later  than  the  later 
epistles  of  Paul,  and  whether  it  represents  the  result  of 
their  influence  or  is  a  parallel  line  of  thought  is  another 
problem  which  has  not  yet  been  fully  discussed:  in  any 
case,  it  is  cognate  with  them.  No  one  knows  who  wrote 
the  Fourth  Gospel.  Tradition  ascribes  it  to  John  the  son 
of  Zebedee,  but  all  critical  probability  is  against  this 

1 1  have  at  present  no  clear  opinion  on  the  problem,  except  that  I 
am  strongly  disinclined  to  accept  the  rather  popular  view  which 
receives  Colossians  as  Pauline  and  rejects  Ephesians.  Unless  some 
theory  similar  to  Holtzmann's  be  accepted,  I  think  that  Colossians 
and  Ephesians  stand  or  fall  together.  The  popular  distinction  is 
partly  due  to  the  fact  that  Protestant  scholarship  is  more  sensitive 
to  the  un-Pauline  ecclesiology  of  Ephesians,  which  it  repudiates, 
than  to  the  un-Pauline  Christology  of  Colossians,  to  which  it 
adheres. 


94  Early  Christianity  V 

theory.  It  seems  tolerably  clear  that  the  Fourth  Gospel 
was  not  written  by  an  eye-witness,  and  that  it  implies 
not  a  knowledge  of  the  historic  Jesus  so  much  as  an 
acquaintance  with  the  subapostolic  Church.  It  is  appar- 
ently an  attempt  to  rewrite  the  story  of  Jesus  in  the 
interests  of  a  "pre-existent"  Christology,  and  of  a  high 
form  of  sacramental  teaching. 

Tradition  connects  both  the  later  Pauline  epistles  and 
the  Fourth  Gospel  with  the  Province  of  Asia,  and  espe- 
cially with  Ephesus.  There  is  no  reason  for  doubting  this 
tradition,  but  it  is  strange  how  soon  its  creative  spirit 
passed  to  Alexandria,  a  Church  of  which  the  origin  is 
as  obscure  as  the  later  history  is  famous. 

Tantalising  though  many  of  these  problems  are,  there 
is  no  doubt  as  to  the  main  characteristics  of  the  Chris- 
tianity of  Ephesus  and  its  neighbourhood.  Its  Chris- 
tology  was  the  reverse  of  Adoptionist.  It  did  not  think  of 
Jesus  as  a  man  who  had  become  divine,  but  as  a  God  who 
had  become  human.  Moreover,  an  identification  of  this 
pre-existent  being  with  the  Logos  of  the  philosopher  was 
gradually  approached  in  the  later  Epistles,  and  finally 
made  in  the  Prologue  to  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

The  word  Logos  has  an  intricate  and  long  history  which 
has  often  been  treated  in  books  on  the  New  Testament: 
it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  repeat  it  at  length.  But  it  has 
not  usually  been  sufficiently  noted  that  the  difficulty  of 
the  problems  raised  by  it  are  mainly  due  to  its  use  in 
different  ways  in  different  systems  of  thought.  The  popu- 
lar Stoic  philosophy,  with  its  belief  in  a  God  immanent 
in  the  universe,  could  use  Logos  in  the  sense  of  the  gov- 
erning principle  of  the  world,  and  as  little  less  than  a 
synonym,  or,  perhaps  one  should  say,  description  of  God. 
On  the  other  hand,  a  transcendental  theology  such  as 
Platonism,  believing  in  a  God  entirely  above  all  existence 
in  the  universe,  needed  a  connecting  link  between  God  and 
the  world,  and  could  use  Logos  in  this  sense.  Finally, 
a  mediatising  writer  such  as  Cornutus  could  explain  that 


V  Rome  and  Ephesus  95 

the  Logos  was  Hermes,  and  so  triumphantly  reconcile 
philosophy  and  myth,  by  giving  a  mythological  meaning 
to  a  philosophic  term. 

All  this  is  clear  enough  ;  but  the  difficulty  begins  when 
one  asks  in  which  sense  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
used  the  phrase.  Did  he  mean  that  the  Logos  was  the 
anima  mundif  The  phrase  "the  true  light  which  lighteth 
every  one"  is  susceptible  of  such  a  meaning.  But  it  seema 
more  probable  that  his  theology  was  in  the  main  trans- 
cendental, and  that  the  Logos  was  for  him  the  connecting 
link  between  God  and  the  world.  But  how  far  is  the 
Prologue  really  metaphysical  and  not  comparable  in  its 
identification  of  Jesus  and  the  Logos  to  Cornutus,1  with 
his  identification  of  Hermes  and  the  Logos  ? 

Further  problems  arise  if  an  effort  is  made  to  recon- 
struct fully  the  Ephesian  Christianity  of  which  the  Fourth 
Gospel  is  the  product.  After  the  Prologue  the  Logos  does 
not  seem  to  be  mentioned  again;  Jesus  appears  as  the 
supernatural  Lord  (though  this  word  is  not  characteristic 
of  the  Gospel)  who  reveals  the  Father  to  men.  He  offers 
them  salvation  by  regeneration  in  baptism,  and  by  eating 
his  flesh  and  blood  in  the  Eucharist.  They  become  super- 
naturally  the  children  of  God.  This  is  the  teaching  of 
the  Hellenised  Church,  not  of  the  historic  Jesus.  Bufr 
running  through  the  Gospel  there  is  also  another  line  of 
thought  which  regards  salvation  as  due  to  knowledge  rather 
than  sacraments.  What  is  the  relation  to  each  other  of 
these  two  ways  of  regarding  salvation  ?  The  problem  has 
scarcely  been  formulated  by  the  students  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  much  less  adequately  discussed. 

Obviously  the  tendency  of  Ephesian  Christianity  was 
to  minimise  the  human  characteristics  of  the  historic 
Jesus,  and  to  merge  into  Docetism.  This  can  be  seen  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  in  the  allied  Johannine  Epistles. 
The  writer  is  fully  aware  of  the  danger,  and  protests 


k£  ovpavov  ol 
Cornutus,  De  Natura  Deorum,  xvi. 


96  Early  Christianity  V 

against  Docetism,  but  his  own  writings  with  very  small 
changes  would  have  been  admirably  adapted  for  Docetic 
purposes.1 

If  Ephesian  Christianity  had  never  come  to  Rome, 
and  met  its  complement  in  the  Adoptionists,  it  might,  in 
spite  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  have  degenerated  into  thor- 
ough-going Docetism,  or  have  been  represented  only  by 
Gnostics.  It  is  hard  either  to  prove  or  to  refute  the  sug- 
gestion that  Alexandrian  Gnosticism  of  the  Valentinian 
type  came  from  Ephesus  along  the  Syrian  coast,  and  that 
the  ultimately  successful  Catholicism  of  Pantaenus  and 
Clement  came  from  the  other  stream  which  passed  first 
northwards  and  then  through  Italy  to  Alexandria.  Each 
of  these  streams  accumulated  new  ideas  on  the  way:  the 
stream  passing  through  Syria  found  the  Eastern  Gnostics 
of  whom  Simon  Magus  is  alleged  to  have  been  the  first. 
The  other  stream  passed  through  Rome  and  found  Adop- 
tionism.  The  combination  with  this  strengthened  the 
belief  in  the  true  humanity  of  Jesus,  and  in  his  real 
divinity,  thus  providing  the  groundwork  for  the  Christo- 
logical  development  of  Irenaeus  and  his  successors  in  the 
fourth  century.2 

The  man  who  seems  to  have  brought  Ephesian  Chris- 
tianity to  Rome  was  Justin  Martyr,  sometimes  called  the 
Philosopher.  This  title  is  somewhat  unfair  to  philoso- 
phers, for  the  only  claim  which  Justin  could  make  to  the 
name  was  that  he  had  dabbled  with  little  profit  in  many 
schools  before  he  was  converted  to  Christianity  by  an 
old  man  who  gave  him  the  Christian  interpretation  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

Justin    is   in   fact   not   much   more   philosophic   than 

1  The  Leucian  Acts  of  John  and  Andrew,  which  seem  to  have  a 
real  connection  with  the  Johannine  tradition,  represent  this  Docetic 
tendency. 

3 1  must  emphasise  the  speculative  nature  of  this  suggestion.  So 
far  as  I  know,  there  is  not  any  evidence  that  Pantaenus  was  in 
Rome,  or  that  Clement  was  influenced  by  Roman  thought.  But — 
merely  as  a  guess — the  idea  appeals  to  me  as  probable  in  itself. 


V  Rome  and  Ephesus  97 

Hennas.  His  Christology  is  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos ; 
but  Logos  is  for  him  merely  the  name  of  a  second  God 
who  is  responsible  for  creation  and  redemption.  Of  the 
many  books  which  he  is  said  to  have  written  only  his  two 
Apologies  and  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  are  extant.  The 
latter  is  a  long  rambling  exposition  of  the  proof  from  the 
Old  Testament,  in  the  Septuagint  version,  that  there  is  a 
"second  God,"  and  that  his  incarnation  in  Jesus  was  fore- 
told. The  Apologies  also  are  full  of  proof  from  the  Old 
Testament,  but  contain  most  valuable  statements  as  to  the 
Christian  cult  and  its  sacraments.  They  are  also  remark- 
able for  insisting  that  the  heathen  religions  are  due  to 
the  clumsy  efforts  of  demons  to  deceive  men  by  false  ful- 
filments of  scripture. 

Justin  was  not  a  man  of  commanding  intellect,  but  he 
seems  to  have  brought  Ephesian  Christianity  to  Kome, 
and  so  began  in  that  city  the  synthesis  with  Greek  phi- 
losophy which  the  later  Pauline  epistles  and  Fourth  Gos- 
pel began  in  Ephesus  and  Origen  completed  in  Alexan- 
dria. He  appears  to  have  been  martyred  in  Eome,  per- 
haps owing  to  the  hostility  of  Crescens,  a  cynic  philosopher 
with  whom  he  had  quarrelled.  The  acts  of  his  martyrdom 
are  extant ;  the  most  significant  point  in  them  is  his  disso- 
ciation from  other  bodies  of  Christians  in  Eome.1  This 
is  seen  from  the  following  extract  from  his  examination 
by  Rusticus  the  Prefect: 

"Rusticus  the  prefect  said,  'Where  do  you  assemble  V 
Justin  said,  'Where  inclination  and  ability  lead  each  of 
us.  For  do  you  really  think  that  we  all  assemble  in  the 
same  place  ?  That  is  not  the  case,  because  the  God  of  the 
Christians  is  not  locally  circumscribed,  but,  though  he 
cannot  be  seen,  fills  heaven  and  earth  and  receives  wor- 
ship and  glorification  from  the  faithful  in  all  places.' 
Rusticus  the  prefect  said,  'Tell  me  where  you  assemble 

1  The  address  in  Rome  which  Justin  gives  is  obscure,  but  it  is  sup- 
posed to  be  the  same  as  the  bath  called  Novatian's  on  the  Via 
Viminalis.  See  Otto's  note  on  the  subject. 


98  Early  Christianity  V 

or  in  what  place  you  collect  your  disciples.'  Justin  said, 
'I  am  staying  above  the  baths  of  a  certain  Martin,  the  son 
of  Timothinus,  and  throughout  this  period  (it  is  my  sec- 
ond visit  to  Rome)  I  am  unacquainted  with  any  other 
assembly  except  that  in  this  house.  And  if  any  one  wished 
to  come  with  me,  I  communicated  to  him  the  words  of 
truth.'  "  l 

It  would  be  possible  to  fill  a  volume  with  the  discus- 
sion of  the  development  of  the  Logos  doctrine  after  the  time 
of  Justin  Martyr.  All  that  can  here  be  done  is  to  note  how 
it  passed  from  Eome  to  Alexandria — f rom  Justin  to  Origen 
— and  to  compare  certain  aspects  of  it  with  Adoptionist 
Christianity,  and  to  consider  the  position  which  either  of 
these  Christologies  can  take  in  modern  theology. 

It  is  very  doubtful  whether  Justin  Martyr  or  the  writer 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  had  any  concept  of  Immaterial 
Reality.  To  Justin  Martyr,  at  least,  the  Logos  appears 
to  have  been  a  second  God,  and  his  identification  of  Jesus 
with  the  Logos  is  much  more  like  that  of  Cornutus — 
mutatis  mutandis — than  anything  else  which  we  possess. 
But  however  this  may  be,  the  Logos  Christology  was  in- 
valuable for  Origen  in  finding  room  in  Christian  theology 
for  the  identification  of  God  with  Immaterial  Reality. 
We  may  paraphrase  rather  than  explain  his  teaching  by 
saying  that  he  believed  in  the  divinity  and  unity  of 
Immaterial  Reality,  but  thought  also  that  diversity  as 
well  as  unity  could  be  predicated  of  it ;  that  man  belonged 
on  one  side  of  his  nature  to  Immaterial  Reality,  and 

1  'POWTIKOS  tirapxos  enre*  Hov  avv'tpxeaQe  ;  'lovvrlvos  direv'  "Ev9a  e/cioTV 
Trpoalpeo-is  Kal  Sbvapls  kan.  TravTUs  yap  yo/ufcis  kiri  TO  avrd  <rvvepxf<rOai 
i7juas  Travras  ;  ovx  ourcos  bk'  Si6ri  6  0eos  T&V  XpurTiavuv  TOTTC*)  ov  irepi,- 
t,  AXXa  Aoparos  &v  TOP  ovpavbv  Kal  T^V  yrjv  TrXtjpol  Kal  Tra.VTa.xpv  VTT& 
irpocr/cwelrai  Kal  5o£d£"€TCU.  'Pown/cos  eirapxos  tiirev'  Eiire 
€ts  irolov  TOTTov  adpoi^etv  robs  nadrjTas  aov  /  'lov&rlvos 
'Eyu  k-jravca  new  TIVOS  Maprivov  TOV  Tifjiodivov  /SaXa^etou,  Kal  wapa 
TOV  XP&VOV  TOVTOV  (kiredrifjirjaa  81  r%  'Pco/ta/cof  TroXei  TOVTO  devrepov) 
Kal  ov  ywucrKU  a\\r)v  nva  avv€\ev<nv  el  /*T)  TT\V  &ceivov.  Kal  el  TIS  e/3o6Xero 
a4>iKvela9ai  Trap'  e/xot,  ZKOIVUVOVV  avrq  TUV  rrjs  a\rjdelas  Xoyaw. 


V  Eome  and  Epkesus  99 

that,  so  far  as  lie  did  so,  he  shared  the  attribute  of 
eternity.  Like  other  thinkers,  Origen  failed  to  make  clear 
exactly  what  is  the  relation  between  the  Immaterial 
Reality  which  is  eternal  and  changeless  and  the  Material 
Eeality  which  is  subject  to  change  and  time,  and  is  the 
basis  of  phenomena.  But  in  some  way,  he  believed,  the 
Logos *  was  that  power  of  Immaterial  Reality  which 
stretches  out  and  mingles  with  the  world  of  matter.  It 
is  impossible  and  undesirable  to  expound  at  length  this 
general  theory;  it  must  suffice  to  notice  its  bearings  on 
Christology. 

In  the  first  place,  it  seems  to  have  overcome  the  ten- 
dency of  Logos  theology  to  produce  Docetism.  The  earlier 
forms  of  this  kind  of  teaching  which  represented  the 
Logos  as  a  spirit  who  came  down  to  rescue  humanity 
offered  no  real  reason  for  maintaining  the  true  humanity 
of  Jesus.  It  seems  to  have  been  the  pressure  of  recog- 
nised fact,  which  had  not  yet  been  forgotten,  which  made 
the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  of  the  First  Epistle 
of  John  protest  so  strongly  against  Docetism.  The  ten- 
dency  of  their  teaching  by  itself  was  all  the  other  way,  and 
the  Acts  of  John,  with  their  completely  unreal  humanity 
of  Jesus,  are  the  natural,  though  no  doubt  unlooked-for, 
results  of  the  Ephesian  school.  But  that  is  not  the  case 
with  Origen,  and  cannot  be  the  case  with  any  Christology 
or  theology  which  really  understands  the  doctrine  of  Im- 
material Reality.  It  is  possible  to  have  a  spirit,  using  the 
word  in  the  popular  and  material  sense,  which  looks  like 
a  human  being,  but  is  not  really  one,  but  that  cannot  be 
so  with  Immaterial  Reality. 

Origen  achieved  a  synthesis  with  Greek  philosophy 
which  enabled  Christianity  to  accept  a  belief  in  Imma- 
terial Reality  without  a  Docetic  Christology,  but  it  must 
be  remembered  that  Origen  was  able  to  do  this  largely 
because  he  stood  in  the  line  of  succession  from  the  Fourth 

JThe  elements  of  multiplicity,  he  thinks,  are  contained  in  the 
Logos,  which  is  therefore  secondary  to  the  Father. 


100  Early  Christianity  V 

Gospel  and  Justin  Martyr.  He  did  not  take  the  word 
Logos  in  the  same  sense  as  Justin  had  done,  and  he  per- 
manently changed,  and  indeed  partly  confused,  Christian 
terminology  by  giving  the  meaning  of  immaterial  to  the 
words  spirit  and  spiritual.  They  have  in  the  main  re- 
tained this  meaning  ever  since,  but  students  of  the  New 
Testament  will  do  well  to  remember  that  this  is  not  the 
meaning  of  the  words  in  the  original,  and  that  Origen, 
though  neither  the  first  nor  the  last,  is  probably  the  ablest 
of  the  long  line  of  theologians  who  have  introduced  meta- 
physics into  Christian  doctrine  by  a  perverse  exegesis 
of  the  words  of  Scripture. 

The  Catholic  Christianity  which  emerged  from  the 
struggle  between  Adoptionism  and  the  Logos  Christology 
was  a  curious  combination  of  both.  In  the  strict  sense 
of  Christology,  Adoptionism  was  completely  abandoned. 
Jesus  was  regarded  as  the  eternal  Logos  who  became  man, 
not  as  the  inspired  and  perfect  man  who  became  God. 
But  in  the  sphere  of  soteriology  the  legacy  of  Adoption- 
ism can  clearly  be  seen.  The  Christian  became  the  adopted 
son  of  God,  joint  heir  with  Christ,  and  this  remained  part 
of  Catholic  teaching.  It  is  not,  however,  really  con- 
sistent with  the  Logos  doctrine,  and  is  logically  part  of 
Adoptionism.  The  incoherence  introduced  at  this  point 
was  met  by  the  splendid  paradox  of  Irenaeus  and  Atha- 
nasius  that  God  became  man  in  order  that  man  might  be- 
come God.  But  splendid  though  this  be,  it  remains  a 
paradox,  and  it  was  diluted  very  considerably  in  later 
theology,  which  seems  to  have  felt  that  the  abandonment 
of  Adoptionism  in  the  sphere  of  Christology  necessitated 
its  abandonment  in  the  doctrine  of  salvation.  Thus,  at 
least  in  popular  theology,  the  grandiose  conception  of  the 
apotheosis  of  humanity  has  passed  into  the  far  more 
mythological  one  of  becoming  an  angel  after  death — a 
view  very  widely  held,  though  perhaps  never  officially 
recognised. 


V  Rome  and  Ephesus1-    ,  101 

What  part  can  either  Adoptionism  or  the  togos  Chris- 
tology  play  in  any  modern  form  of  thought?  Adoption- 
ism  seems  to  me  to  have  no  part  or  lot  in  any  intelligent 
modern  theology,  though  it  is  unfortunately  often  pro- 
mulgated, especially  in  pulpits  which  are  regarded  as 
liberal.  We  cannot  believe  that  at  any  time  a  human 
being,  in  consequence  of  his  virtue,  became  God,  which 
he  was  not  before,  or  that  any  human  being  ever  will  do 
so.  No  doctrine  of  Christology  and  no  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion which  is  Adoptionist  in  essence  can  come  to  terms 
with  modern  thought. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Logos  is  on  a  different  plane.  In 
the  form  in  which  it  is  presented  by  Justin  Martyr  it  is 
probably  as  unacceptable  as  Adoptionism,  but  in  the  form 
presented  by  Origen  the  modern  mind  constantly  feels 
that  the  writer  is  struggling  to  express  its  own  thoughts, 
and  is  attracted  to  Origen  not  only  by  the  recognition  of 
a  common  purpose,  but  by  a  consciousness  of  a  common 
failure,  for,  at  the  end,  reality  transcends  thought  and 
language,  and  the  philosophy  of  Alexandria  was  no  more 
completely  successful  than  is  that  of  our  world. 

I  have  often  felt  in  talking  with  younger  men  of  the 
present  day  how  closely  they  have  approached  to  the  posi- 
tion of  Origen  and  how  far  they  are  from  him  in  method. 
If  I  may  put  into  my  own  words  the  form  of  thought 
which  seems  to  animate  them,  it  is  something  of  this  kind. 
They  feel  that  the  world  in  which  we  live  is  the  expression 
of  some  great  plan  or  purpose  or  pattern  which  is  not 
yet  complete,  which  shows  no  sign  of  finality,  but  is  ever 
growing  in  complexity;  which  resolves  itself  again  and 
again  into  simplicity,  and  then  spreads  out  again  on  a 
yet  wider  scale.  The  plan  or  purpose  is  not  a  dead 
mechanical  thing;  the  life  which  explains  it  is  within 
and  not  without  it.  Men  are  partly  the  result,  but  partly 
also  the  instruments  or  even  agents  of  this  purpose.  Wis- 
dom is  the  right  understanding  of  its  nature;  and  right- 


102  Early  Christianity  V 

eousness  is  the  attempt  to  subordinate  human  purposes  to 
this  great  purpose  of  life.  For  man  is  not  only  an  effect, 
he  is  a  cause.  When  he  acts,  he  brings  into  existence  a 
new  cause  of  which  the  results  will  follow  in  accordance 
with  the  established  laws  of  reality.  But  there  is  a  mo- 
ment of  choice,  when  he  has  it  within  his  power  to  decide 
whether  he  will  act  or  not.  If  he  choose  right,  his  actions 
will  be  taken  up  into  the  great  web  of  existence,  consist- 
ently with  the  great  purpose.  If  he  choose  wrongly,  the 
results  will  in  the  end  be  destroyed,  not  without  suffering 
to  himself  and  others. 

To  a  more  vivid  imagination  which  thinks  in  pictures 
rather  than  in  metaphysical  language,  life  presents  itself 
as  a  great  web  which  is  slowly  coming  from  the  loom,  and 
sometimes  there  seems  to  be  behind  the  loom,  the  figure 
of  the  great  weaver;  at  other  times  the  weaving  is  being 
carried  on  by  men  and  women  whose  weaving  sometimes 
conforms,  sometimes  does  not,  to  an  infinitely  compli- 
cated but  symmetrical  plan  which,  and  here  is  the  para- 
doxical tragedy,  they  can  only  see  in  the  web  which  has 
been  already  woven;  but  they  know  that  whether  what 
they  weave  will  remain  or  not  depends  upon  its  being  in 
accord  with  the  pattern.  And  then  the  picture  changes 
slightly,  and  it  seems  as  though  the  pattern  begins  to  re- 
veal the  same  features  as  those  dimly  discerned  in  the 
weaver  behind  the  loom.  And  yet  again  the  picture 
changes,  and  it  is  not  merely  the  great  weaver,  but  the 
men  and  women  who  are  working  that  reappear  with  him 
to  live  on  in  the  pattern  emerging  in  the  web. 

That  is  not  the  same  thing  as  the  Logos  Christology  or 
doctrine  of  salvation  as  propounded  by  Origen,  but  I 
think  that  he  would  have  understood  it  had  he  lived  now. 
It  is  not  the  same  thing  as  the  teaching  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  preached  by  Jesus,  yet  I  do  not  think  that  he 
would  have  condemned  it,  for  great  men  understand  the 
thoughts  of  lesser  ones  though  they  themselves  fail  to  be 
understood.  The  thoughts  and  words  of  Jesus,  like  those 


V  Rome  and  Ephesus  103 

of  Origen,  were  borrowed  from  his  own  time  and  race; 
they  belong  to  the  first  century  as  those  of  Origen  belong 
to  the  third.  No  historical  reconstruction  can  make  them 
adequate  for  our  generation,  or  even  intelligible  except 
to  those  who  have  passed  through  an  education  in  history 
impossible  for  most.  But  the  will  of  Jesus  and  the  will 
of  Origen,  if  we  can  reach  them  through  the  language 
and  thought  of  their  time,  have  no  such  limitations.  If 
I  have  understood  them  rightly,  both  were  animated  by 
a  desire  to  accomplish  the  purpose  of  God,  the  God  who 
is  life.1  And  that  purpose  did  not  appeal  to  them  as  the 
achievement  for  themselves  of  any  salvation,  in  this  world 
or  in  the  world  to  come,  beyond  the  reach  of  other  men, 
but  rather  to  show  them  what  is  the  way  of  life,  the  natural 
way,  consistent  with  the  purpose  of  God  and  the  pattern 
of  life.  So  far  as  they  succeeded  in  their  teaching  they 
did  so  because  they  devoted  themselves  to  expressing 
clearly  what  they  wished  without  troubling  to  ask  whether 
it  conformed  to  what  other  people  said,  and  they  spoke 
the  clearest  language  which  they  could  find  in  their  own 
generation. 

To  do  the  same  thing  is  the  business  of  preachers  and 
teachers  to-day.  The  man  who  tries  merely  to  repeat  the 
thoughts  or  the  words  of  past  generations  forgets  that  the 
call  which  comes  to  the  teacher  is  not  to  repeat  what  others 
have  said  because  they  have  said  it,  but  to  say  what  is 
true  because  it  is  true,  and  to  say  it  in  the  language  of 
his  own  time  that  it  may  be  intelligible.  He  will  often 
appear  to  contradict  the  thought  or  the  language  of  Jesus 
or  of  Paul  or  of  Origen,  but  he  will  be  loyal  to  the  purpose 
which  was  theirs,  and  yet  so  much  more  than  theirs. 

1  Perhaps  the  most  significant  difference  between  Jesus  and  Origen 
is  that  Origen  was  inclined  to  find  the  concrete  expression  of  the 
Purpose  of  Life  in  self-realisation — he  was  in  the  best  sense  & 
Gnostic — while  Jesus  found  it  in  the  service  of  the  weak,  ignorant, 
and  sinful,  rather  than  merely  in  loyal  obedience  to  the  strong, 
wise,  and  righteous.  The  two  are  complementary,  not  contradictory 
— but  they  are  not  identical. 


APPENDIX 

THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  SHEPHERD  OF  HERMAS 

I  AM  glad  to  be  allowed  to  quote  on  this  subject  from  a 
letter  by  my  friend  and  former  pupil,  Dr.  F.  S.  Mackenzie 
of  Montreal,  who  has  spent  much  time  on  the  study  of 
Hermas.     He  says: 

"In  several  passages  Hermas  speaks  of  a  small  circle  of 
six  superior  angels.  It  is  legitimate  to  look  for  a  reason  for 
his  choice  of  this  particular  number,  and  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  the  reason  may  be  discovered  in  Sim.  ix.,  where 
the  Son  of  God,  who  appears  as  lord  of  the  tower,  is  clearly 
thought  of  as  the  seventh  angel,  superior  to  the  six  who 
accompany  him  and  who  have  charge  of  the  building  of  the 
tower,  as  they  in  turn  are  superior  to  all  lesser  angels  and 
men.  Thus  the  number  of  the  archangels  is  made  complete, 
according  to  prevailing  apocalyptic  enumeration.  The  con- 
tention of  some  scholars,  among  whom  Zahn  is  the  most  out- 
standing, that  Hermas  makes  a  fundamental  distinction  be- 
tween the  Son  of  God  and  all  angels,  cannot  be  made  good. 
The  lord  of  the  tower  in  Sim.  ix.  is  not  different  in  kind 
from  the  six  angels  who  accompany  him  in  his  inspection 
of  the  tower.  While  he  is,  indeed,  much  more  glorious  than 
the  others,  nevertheless  he  and  they  alike  appear  as  'glorious 
men.'  They  all  are  angels  (Sim.  ix.  12.  7-8).  Moreover,  this 
angelic  Son  of  God  is  called  Michael  in  Sim.  viii.,  and  is 
obviously  identical  with  the  most  revered  or  glorious  angel 
(  aenvbraTos  &yye\os  )  referred  to  in  other  places.  He  is 
supreme  in  the  angel  world.  He  has  all  authority  over  both 
angels  and  men.  He  is  lord  of  the  Church,  and  judge  of  its 
members. 

"Why  is  the  Son  of  God,  the  Christian  archangel,  called 
Michael?  Michael  was  one  of  the  seven  Jewish  archangels; 
and  to  him,  according  to  Dan.  xii.  1,  was  to  be  committed  the 

105 


106  Early  Christianity 

judgement  of  the  people  of  God.  There  are  indications  in 
apocalyptic  literature  that  he  was  regarded  as  supreme  in  this 
angelic  circle.  Hernias  apparently  has  carried  over  the  name 
of  this  Jewish  angel,  and  used  it  to  designate  the  archangel 
of  the  Christians,  who  are  for  him,  of  course,  the  true  Israel. 
The  position  of  supremacy  in  the  angel  world,  assigned  by 
pre-Christian  righteous  men  to  Michael,  is  really  held  by  the 
Son  of  God.  He  is  in  fact  the  true  Michael;  and  in  him  all 
that  is  foretold  of  Michael  in  valid  prophecy  will  be  fulfilled. 
If  Hermas  regarded  the  prediction  of  Dan.  xii.  1  as  authorita- 
tive at  all,  he  must  obviously  have  seen  in  it  a  reference  to 
the  Christian  judgement  to  be  executed  by  the  Son  of  God. 
And  I  consider  it  highly  probable  that  this  may  explain  the 
apparent  identification  of  the  Son  of  God  with  the  Jewish 
angel.  Hermas  has  simply  made  use  of  the  name  to  connect 
his  ideas  with  the  Danielic  prophecy,  and  to  show  how,  in  his 
opinion,  that  prophecy  is  to  be  fulfilled.  If  this  be  so,  then 
the  Son  of  God  is  not,  strictly  speaking,  identified  with  the 
Jewish  Michael,  but  he  may  nevertheless  be  given  the  name 
on  occasion,  because  of  the  fact  that  in  him  all  that  the 
prophets  foretold  of  the  archangel  of  the  people  of  God  will 
come  to  pass. 

"The  term  Son  of  God  is  used  by  Hermas  in  a  double  sense. 
On  the  one  hand,  it  is  used  of  the  pre-existent  counsellor  of 
God,  who  may  also  be  called  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  on  the  other 
of  the  glorified  and  exalted  Jesus,  the  elect  servant,  who 
became  the  Son  of  God  (Sim.  v.  6),  or  in  whom,  as  is  said  in 
Sim.  ix.  12,  the  pre-existent  Son  became  manifest.  Because 
Jesus  alone  of  all  men  preserved  the  indwelling  Spirit  pure, 
therefore  he  is  the  only  perfect  manifestation  of  the  Spirit 
or  Son  of  God.  And  he  was  rewarded  for  his  fidelity  by  being 
adopted  into  the  family  of  God  as  joint  heir  with  the  Son. 
Nevertheless  he  is  not,  and  never  can  be,  one  with  the  pre- 
existent  Son  or  Spirit. 

"One  is  tempted  to  argue  that  this  distinction  is  observed 
in  Similitudes  v.,  viii.,  and  ix.,  and  that  the  Son  of  the  master 
of  the  vineyard,  the  great  spreading  tree,  and  the  ancient  rock 
respectively  represent  the  pre-existent  Son,  while  the  elect 
servant,  the  angel  Michael,  and  the  lord  of  the  tower  represent 
the  exalted  Jesus.  Thus  all  the  angelic  representations  of  the 


Appendix  107 

Son  of  God  would  refer  only  to  the  latter.  Moreover,  there 
are  features  in  the  angelology  of  Hernias  which  strengthen 
such  an  argument.  From  Vis.  ii.  2,  7,  Sim.  ix,  24.  4, 
25.  2,  27.  3,  it  seems  clear  that  Christians  are  believed  to 
become  angels  at  their  death.  Their  rank,  however,  in  the 
angel  world  will  not  be  uniform,  but  will  vary  according  to 
the  excellence  of  their  life  on  earth.  Jesus  therefore,  because 
of  his  unique  purity  of  life,  must  necessarily  be  the  most 
highly  exalted  of  all  such  angels.  And  so,  in  point  of  fact, 
he  is.  Of  all  angels,  only  he  has  ever  been  admitted  to  a 
position  of  co-equality  with  the  pre-existent  Son. 

"On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  remembered  that  Hernias 
at  times  seems  to  think  of  the  pre-existent  Son  or  Spirit  as  an 
angel  (Mand.  vi.  2,  xi.  9).  Moreover,  in  his  representation  as 
the  son  of  the  master  in  the  parable  of  Sim.  v.,  he  stands  in 
very  much  the  same  relation  to  the  first-created  angels  as 
does  the  lord  of  the  tower  in  Sim.  ix.  And  finally,  there  is  an 
undoubted  difficulty  in  supposing  that  the  six  archangels  are 
thought  of  as  being  obliged  to  wait  from  the  beginning  of  time 
until  the  exaltation  of  Jesus  for  their  number  to  be  completed. 
It  still  remains  an  open  question  whether  the  Christian  arch- 
angel, the  lord  and  judge  of  the  Church,  is  the  eternal  or  the 
adopted  Son  of  God;  and  with  the  uncertainty  and  obscurity 
of  the  data,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  a  final  judgement  in 
the  matter  can  be  given.  Hermas  does  not,  in  fact,  preserve 
any  clear  distinction  between  spirits  and  angels.  He  reveals 
throughout  an  undoubted  fondness  for  hypostatisation.  Even 
virtues  and  vices,  emotions  and  passions,  are  described  as 
spirits  or  demons  as  the  case  may  be,  and  spoken  of  as  if  they 
were  possessed  of  personality.  And  certainly  some  allowance 
ought  to  be  made  for  this  tendency  of  the  author,  in  the 
matter  of  determining  his  conception  of  spirits  in  general, 
and  in  particular  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  besides  having  an 
eternal  existence  with  God,  dwells  also  in  every  man." 


ADDITIONAL  NOTE  TO  PAGE 


AFTER  this  passage  was  ready  for  the  press  my  friend,  Mr. 
Robert  P.  Casey,  sent  me  the  following  criticism:  "It  can. 
hardly  be  said  that  'we'  gain  through  the  loss  of  our  person- 
alities, since  'we'  (a  personal  pronoun)  are  our  personalities.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  that  Immaterial  Purpose, 
which  works  in  and  through  our  personal  life,  or  at  least  some  parts 
of  it,  gains  by  rejecting  us  after  our  usefulness  is  past,  seeking  its 
further  completion  in  those  who  come  after  us,  and  thus  maintaining 
a  unified  and  eternal  Life  through  a  multiplicity  and  diversity  of 
lives.  That  this  process  is  a  gain  from  the  point  of  view  of  history 
is  apparent,  yet  it  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  'our'  gain  if  'we'  are 
destroyed  in  the  process. 

"Furthermore,  is  the  archipelago  a  fair  analogy?  In  the  sentence 
'If  those  islands  could  have  thought  and  spoken  .  .  .'  the  fact  that 
they  cannot  destroys  the  analogy  at  its  most  important  point.  The 
allegory  fits  admirably  the  relation  of  the  individual  life  and  Imma- 
terial Reality  as  a  whole,  but  the  crux  of  the  problem  of  immortality 
from  the  point  of  the  individual  is  the  relation  between  ( 1 )  the  unity 
established  between  the  intellectual  and  moral  elements  (but  not 
many  other  elements,  e.g.  evil)  of  his  personal  life  and  the  sum  total 
of  Immaterial  Reality,  and  (2)  the  equally  real  and  more  obvious 
unity  presented  by  his  own  personality,  including  all  his  conscious 
experiences  regardless  of  their  value. 

"The  first  unity  is,  if  not  everlasting,  at  least  as  permanent  aa 
history  itself,  and  is  by  its  nature  eternal  and  immaterial.  The 
second  unity  is  apparently  transitory,  being  dependent  physically 
on  the  brain  and  nervous  system,  psychically  on  the  persistence  of 
memory.  Thus,  to  say  a  man  has  eternal  life  is  simply  to  mean 
that  certain  of  his  activities  or  experiences  have  the  attribute  of 
eternal  or  immaterial.  It,  however,  leaves  untouched  the  question 
whether  the  'ego'  which  is  conscious  of  these  activities  continues 
after  death." 

The  point  seems  to  me  to  be  well  taken,  and  to  express  a  widely 
spread  and  possibly  correct  opinion;  yet  I  cannot  but  feel  that 
Mr.  Casey  is  a  little  too  much  influenced  by  the  exigencies  of  lan- 
guage. Of  course  in  all  the  ordinary  dealings  of  life  that  which 
makes  me  "me"  is  a  number  of  factors,  which,  taken  together,  may 
be  called  personality,  but  the  real  point  at  issue  is  whether  in  the 
last  analysis  these  factors  are  part  of  "me,"  or  are  instruments 
which  "I"  use  and  circumstances  under  which  "I"  live.  For  myself 
I  see  no  reason  to  doubt  that  most  of  them  come  to  an  end  with, 
death.  But  behind  all  this  there  seems  to  me  to  be  something 
in  "me"  which  is  Immaterial,  and  therefore  eternal,  and  I  believe 
that  it  is  this,  not  that  which  now  makes  up  my  personality,  which 
really  makes  me  "me." 

108 


INDEX 


Abraham,  14,  40 

Academics,  68 

Achaea,  51 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  28,  29,  30, 

37,  47,  49,  50,  51,  65,  66 

of  John,  Leucian.    See  John 

Adoptionism,  76,  77,  78,  79,  80, 

81-83,  85,  89,  92,  94,  96,  98, 

100-101 
Age  to  Come,  15-16,   17,   19-21, 

37,  38,  52,  58 
Akiba,  12,  13 
Allen,  W.  C.,  42 
Alexandria,  94,  96,  97,  98,  101 
Alexandrians,  44 
Ambrose,  7 
Ammonius  Saccus,  67 
Animism,  2 
Antioch,  30,  44-56,  78 

missionaries  from,  65 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  5 
Apocalypses,  11,  38,  39 
Apostles'  Creed,  71 
Apotheosis,  6,  100 
Apuleius,  3,  63 
Aquinas,  St.  Thomas,  8-9 
Aristotle,  8,  68 
Asia,  51,  94 
Asians,  44 
Astronomy,  8 
Athanasius,  100 
Augustine,  76 

Bacon,  B.  W.,  89 

Baptism,  64-66,  67,  76,  89,  90,  95 

Barnabas,  47,  48,  50 

Bartimaeus,  37 

Box,  G.  H.,  15 

Burkitt,  F.  C.,  49,  64 

Caesar,  cult  of,  4,  5 
Caesarea,  47 


Caligula,  5 
Canon,  Christian,  55 
Censors,  mediaeval,  12 
Charles,  E.  H.,  11 
Christ.     See  Jesus 
Christ,  pre-existent,  81 
Christians,  Greek,  64 

Hellenistic,  62 

Jewish,  75 

Christianity,     Adoptionist.       See 
Adoptionism 

Bible,  55 

Catholic,  60,  61,  100 

Ephesian,  95-97 

Hellenistic,  47 

Jewish,  29-30 

Roman,  91,  92 

Sabellian,  63 

Sacramental,  76 

Chrigtology,   42,    69,    85,   92,   99, 
100 

Docetic,  99 

Logos,  100,  101,  102 

pre-existent,  77-78,  79-83,  94 
Church,  the,  31,  70,  84,  85,  107 
Cilicians,  44,  45 
Clemen,  C.,  49 
Clement,  7,  96 

Epistle  of,  80,  83-85,  88,  89,  92 
Colossians,  Epistle  to  the,  93 
Constantinople,  10 
Conybeare,  F.  C.,  77 
Corinth,  30,  53,  56-74,  79,  80 
Corinthians,  First  Epistle  to,  68, 
69 

Epistles  to,  48,  75 
Cornelius,  45,  46,  66 
Cornutus,  94,  95,  98 
Councils,  local,  5 
Creation,  64 
Crescens,  97 
Cross,  61 


109 


110 


Index 


Cults,  Graeco-Oriental,  4,  6,  53, 

57 

sacramental,  3-4,  9,  80 
Cyprian,  78 
Cyrenaeans,  44,  45 
Cyrus,  40 

Damascus,  44-45,  66 

Daniel,  16,  39 

David,  14,  36,  40,  52,  79,  80 

anointed  Son  of,  16,  19,  20,  37, 
51 

kingdom  of,  17 
Davidic  king,  16,  40,  41 
Desire,  72,  73 

Diaspora,  Jews  of  the,  35,  44,  57 
Docetic  controversy,  70,  95,  96,  99 
Domitian,  83 
Dorner,  J.  A.,  77 

Ecclesiology,  84 

Eliezer  ben  Durdaiya,  Rabbi,  21, 

22 

Emmet,  C.  W.,  48 
End  of  the  Age,  17,  51,  69 
Energy,  73 

Enoch,  Book  of,  39,  40,  43 
Ephesians,  Epistle  to  the,  93 
Ephesus,  7,  47,  92-98 
Epistles,  Johannine,  95 
Epistles,  Pauline,  29,  65,  92 
Eschatology,  17,  58,  59 
Eucharist,  76,  95 
Eusebius,  8,  83 
Experiment,  communistic,  35 
Ezra,  Fourth  Book  of,  15,  52,  90 

Faith,  74 

Father,  65,  76,  77,  84,  88 
Fatherhood  of  God.     See  God 
Fourth  Philosophy,  11,  22,  24 

Galatians,  Epistle  to  the,  48,  50 

Galilee,  1-27,  30,  56,  66 

Gentiles,  65,  66 

Gfrorer,  A.,  49 

Gnosticism,  96 

God,  Fatherhood  of,  61 

kingdom  of,  18 

the  Son,  62 

sovereignty  of,  13,  14 


God  (contd.)— 

Spirit  of,  31 

supreme,  57,  61,  63 

working  of,  in  the  world,  26 
Golden  Age,  the,  14 
Gore,  C.,  71 
Gospel,  Fourth,  7,  62 
Gospels,  synoptic,  65 
Grace,  63,  64 
Gravitation,  61 

Harnack,  A.  von,  49,  77 

Heaven,  58,  72 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  80,  81, 

82,  90,  92 
Heitmuller,  W.,  49 
Heliogabalus,  63 
Helios,  63 
Hell,  58,  72 
Hellenism,  36,  56 
Hermas,  80,  82,  83,  84,  85,  87-91, 

97,  105 
Hermes,  95 
Herod  the  Great,  10 
Herods,  the,  10 
High-priests,  9,  15,  81 
Hilgenfeld,  A.,  49 
Holtzmann,  H.  J.,  93 

Ignatius,  93 
Incarnation,  77,  81 
Imitatio  Christi,  61 
Immortality,  64,  65,   67,   68,  70, 

71,  82,  90 
personal,  69 

Irenaeus,  58,  62,  96,  100 
Isaiah  liii.,  40,  41 
Isis,  3,  63 
Israel,  14,  40,  79 
Italy,  96 

James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 

46 

Jehovah,  62,  63 
Jehudah  I.,  Rabbi,  22 
Jerusalem,   5,   24,   28-43,   44,   45, 

46,  47-51,  56 
Jesus,  authority  of,  31,  32 

death  of,  28,  30 

ethics  of,  26 

glorified,  69,  70,  77,  106,  107 


Index 


111 


Jesus  (contd.) — 

as  judge,  51,  52,  54,  60,  61,  72 

life  of,  29 

as  Lord,  53-54,  56,  57,  59,  60, 
62-66,  79,  81,  84 

name  of,  67 

as  pre-existent,  77,  79,  80.  81, 
89,  94-97 

teaching   of,   7,  13-27,  35,  37, 

102,  103 
Jews,  9-13,  69 
John,  the  Baptist,  64,  65 

son  of  Zebedee,  93 

Acts  of,  99 

First  Epistle  of,  99 

Gospel  of,  70,  92,  93,  94,  95, 

96,  99-100 
Joppa,  46,  66 
Josephus,  10,  11 
Judaea,  10 

Judaism,  31,  61,  67,  69 
Judaistic  controversy,  46 
Judas  of  Galilee,  10,  23 
Judgement,  the,  58,  72 
Julian,  60 

Justification  by  Faith,  75 
Justin    Martyr,    89,    96-98,    100, 

101 
Jiingst,  J.,  49 


King,  Davidic.    See  Davidie  King 
Kingdom  of  God,  19-20,  22,  37, 

52,  53,  60,  102 
of  Heaven.     See  Kingdom  of 

God 

Klausner,  J.,  15 
Konigsmann,  B.  L.,  49 


Law,  the,  11,  12,  22,  36,  69,  75, 

79 
Life,  72,  73,  74 

eternal,  20 
Logos,  7,  41,  77,  94,  95,  97,  98- 

100,  101 
Lord,  7,  36,  53,  57,  62,  63,  76,  83, 

85 

spirit  of  the,  32 
Luke,  Gospel  of,  20,  28,  29,  37, 

41,  70,  89 


Maccabees,  5 
Mackenzie,  F.  S.,  105 
Magic,  65 
Marcion,  64,  78 
Marius  the  Epicurean,  2 
Mark,   Gospel  of,   20,   21,   28-30, 
31,  37,  38,  39,  40,  42,  89 

end  of  Gospel  of,  30,  70 
Martin,  son  of  Timothinus,  98 
Matthew,  Gospel  of,  20,  21,  28, 
29,  37,  40,  41,  42,  62,  66,  89 
Messiah,  15,  17,  20,  31,  36-37,  39, 
52,  56 

Davidic,  42,  43,  60,  76 

days  of  the,  20 
Messianic  Age,  15 
Metaphysics,  73 

Greek,  9 

Platonic,  7 

Stoic,  68 

Michael,  88,  105-106 
Middle  Ages,  8,  91 
Mind,  67 
Mishna,  the,  36 
Mithraism,  57,  63 
Mithras,  57,  63 
Montefiore,  C.  G.,  21 
Moore,  G.  F.,  37 
Muratori,  Canon  of,  83 
Mysteries,  3,  30,  68 
Mythology,  Greek,  2,  4 

Nazarenes,  synagogue  of  the,  31, 

36 

Non-resistance,  25 
Norden,  E.,  49 

Origen,   7,   72,  97-100,   101,  102, 
103 

Pacifism,  25 

Palestine,  44 

Panaetius,  7 

Pantaenus,  96 

Paradise,  58 

Parousia,  61 

Pater,  Walter,  2 

Patriots,  10 

Paul,  28,   44-46,  47,   48,   50,   52, 

62,   63,    66,   69,   75,    76,    92, 

93,  103 


112 


Index 


Pentecost,  32,  66 

Personality,  73,  74 

Peter,  20,  36,  45-47,  66,  82,  83 

Pharisees,    10,    11,    12,    22,    24, 

69 

Philip,  45,  66,  67 
Philo,  5,  44 

Philosophy,  Greek,  2,  4,  5,  7,  76 
Platonism,  67,  68,  94 
Pliny,  82 
Plotinus,  67 
Plutarch,  3,  4 
Pontius  Pilate,  77 
Posidonius,  7 
Priests,  24 
Prophecy,  32 
Prophets,  34 
Proselytes,  64,  65,  67 
Protestantism,  64 
Psychical  research,  71 
Purgatory,  58 

Q,  28,  29,  38,  39,  40,  54,  89 

Keality,  102 

immaterial,  67,  73,  98,  99 

material,  99 
Eedeemer,  79 
Eedemption,  61 
Eeformation,  the,  9,  63 
Regeneration,  sacramental,  59,  82 
Eeligion,  mystery,  57 

Oriental,  3 
Eemission  of  sins,  89 
Eepentance,  21,  60,  90,  91 
Eesurrection,  17,  58,  61,  65,  69, 
80,82 

of  the  body,  69,  71,  75-76 
Eoman  Empire,  61 

religion  in  the,  2 
Eomans,  Epistle  to  the,  78,  82 

shorter  recension  of  Epistle  to 

the,  78 
Eome,  9,  10,  47,  75-92,  96,  98 

cult  of,  4,  5 
Eufus,  13 
Eusticus,  97 

Sacraments,  3,  6,  65,  69 
Sadducees,  12,  24,  69 
Saints,  64 


Salvation,  3,  4,  6,  57,  58,  59,  60, 

67 

Samaria,  47 

Sanhedrim  of  the  Jews,  5 
Satan,  31 
Saul,  36 

Schleiermacher,  F.,  49 
School,  Ephesian,  99 
Schwanbeck,  E.  A.,  49 
Schwartz,  E.,  49,  51 
Schweitzer,  A.,  18 
Scribes,  10,  12,  22 
Sects,  Jewish,  9 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  61 
Servant,  36,  40-41 
Seven,  the,  45,  67 
Shaoshyant,  16 
Shema,  13 
Sheol,  16 

Simon  Magus,  96  * 

Sin,  91 

Solomon,  Psalms  of,  40,  41 
Son,  65,  77,  86-88 
of  David,  51 
of  God,  36,  41,  62,  80,  81,  89, 

105-107 
of  Man,  20-21,  23,  31,  36,  38-40, 

43,  51,  52,  53,  60,  76 
pre-existent,  106,  107 
Sorof,  M.,  49 
Soteriology,  100 
Soul,  immortality  of  the,  16 
Spirit,  the  Holy,  31,  32,  34,  62, 

65,  66,  68,  70,  76,  77,  86-89, 

106,  107 

pre-existence  of,  87,  106,  107 
Spitta,  F.,  49 
Stephen,  36,  44,  47 
Stoics,  7,  67,  68,  94 
Subliminal  consciousness,  33 
Sun,  57  ;J,.J 

Supreme  God.     See  God 
Synagogue,  6,  30 
Syncretism,  5 
Synedria,  5 
Syria,  96 

Talmud,  12,  24 

Jerusalem,  13 
Tarsus,  45,  47 
Tatian,  59  .* 


Index 


113 


Temple,  25 
Tertullian,  8,  78 
Testament,  New,  55 

Old,  26,  54,  55,  60,  96,  97 
Tinnius,  13 
Torrey,  C.  C.,  49 
Tradition,  Aramaic,  28 
Trajan,  82 

Trinity,  doctrine  of,  87 
Trypho,  97 
Turnus,  13 
Twelve,  the,  45,  46 
Tyrrell,  George,  9 


Usener,  H.,  77 

Valentinus,  96 
Violet,  B.,  15 

Weiss,  B.,  49 
Weiss,  J.,  18,  49 
Wendt,  H.,  49 
Westcott,  B.  F.,  71 
Wisdom  of  Solomon,  42,  69 
Literature,  5,  16,  41 

Zahn,  Th.,  105 
Zealots,  11 


RETURN        CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

198  Main  Stacks 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS. 

Renewls  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling  642-3405. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


APR  0  7 


FORM  NO.  DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY  CA  94720-6000 


LD  21-100m-7,'40 (6936s) 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


